PHL-CHI Route Options

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jul 25, 2015
Messages
2,060
Location
Philadelphia Area
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
 

Attachments

  • NARPtrains2004.pdf
    247.1 KB · Views: 1
Can you point to a post where the poster stated that he/she did not want a CHI-PHL train (other than the Cardinal)?

There has been some debate over whether one existing train should be eliminated to start a new train. And there has been some discussion about whether a new train should run via Buffalo-Albany or via Pittsburgh-Philadelphia. But I think the general consensus has been that an additional CHI-East Coast train would be a very worthwhile addition.

I don't really think that personalizing the issue helps the cause and furthers the discussion though.
 
I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.
 
I think there's also a major difference between "We don't want X ever", "We don't want X under present resource constraints", and "We'd like X but Amtak won't go for it". I see a lot more of the last two than of the first.

Edit: Your PHL/WAS numbers are likely accurate, but they doubtless don't consider a substantial number of PHL pax who take the Pennsylvanian to PGH or a Regional (or Acela) to WAS or NYP to connect with the Cap or LSL. There's a key difference, too, between "X train will generate lots of riders" and "X train will generate enough riders and revenue to survive various political and practical pressures against its existence".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.
Seems like everytime I bring up PHL-CHI you always turn it into more service for upstate New York. I say let's use a schedule for PHL-CHI that serves Ohio at better hours and you say let's just run it up the Empire route instead between CLE and NYP. I am never going to approve Buffalo, Rochester,and Syracuse having two direct routes to CHI while Harrisburg and Lancaster have none and Philadelphia is stuck with a 26 hour ride. If you want to say more people ride the Empire route than the Keystone route, I'll say more people ride the Keystone route than the Cardinal route. So that's a double standard.

Obviously better Ohio hours is something we both agree with. So if we can take care of this problem and the problem of no CHI-Keystone route why are we spending money which could take care of the problem and giving upstate New York even more trains instead? This is why I feel people flat out hate Pennsylvania. Whether that's because people personally don't like me I don't know. You do realize Amtrak owns part of the Keystone route. Would you rather deal with Norfolk Southern for PGH to HAR or CSX for BUF to ALB? And the PRR has lacked a train? You've never heard of the Pennsylvanian?

We (Eastern PA) want a direct train to CHI and we would ride it. Even Amtrak admits so. I think it's bad enough that Amtrak has chosen other markets are more important than their third biggest market. But if Amtrak will give other markets smaller than Philadelphia along with Lancaster and Harrisburg, both top 25 markets, more service and spend more money that they can use to take care of a problem, you bet I'm going to make a stink. I don't think CHI-Keystone is Amtrak's only concern. I wouldn't mind seeing Sunset East, 3-C, Louisville/Nashville, or a train to Vegas get service over a CHI-Keystone route. But not the Empire route getting another train. I'm sure people in those areas don't like seeing their needs not taken care of either while others get "extra" service.
 
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.

Anyone who feels a separate CHI-Keystone train wouldn't produce a reasonable amount of ridership & revenue is just biased against me.
Oh man did this make my day. You've elevated yourself to such importance in your mind (while quoting someones plan) that you really believe that people have nothing better to do that waste time disagreeing with you...because you're you.

Splendid.

Allow me to speak for myself. My personal opinion is you're not as smart as you think you are. Your ideas are not as novel as you present them to be. As I mentioned on another board, the bane of my presence on these boards is NOT being able to unleash the many plans and service proposals/changes that Amtrak has investigated. They are usually labeled proprietary and/or confidential. They typically show what a potential route can and can not do. Some are dismissed while others are considered for further actions. The bottom line is there are proposals that would make your head spin and would succeed....if someone funded them and/or additional equipment became available.

and that's the problem.

No one said that a second Pennsylvanian wouldn't perform well. I've called for a second one since the Broadway was cut. I even mapped out an ideal schedule for it in another thread, while balancing the equipment (leaving a surplus set of Keystones) and identifying slots. I've also called for the restoration of the Montrealer, Gulf Breeze and Cape Codder. However, I am reasonable enough to know that money and equipment doesn't just fall from the sky because someone whines.

When the states band together and put their money where their mouths are, then we'll hopefully see and action plan. I'd like to once again remind everyone that PA waited until the end to fund the Keystones and the Pennsylvanian. The state also left SEPTA twisting in the wind. It is nice to see them finally getting behind another West of Harrisburg train. It would be even nicer if they scooped up that TALGO train and made a deal with NS to operate as an additional Pennsylvanian.

However, it is about dollars and cents. Michigan bought out railroad from NS to improve service. New York leased a significant portion of railroad to improve service on the Empire Corridor. Massachusetts is eyeing more territory in addition to the route they already possess. Connecticut is joining them. Virginia has made investments in their state to make sure rail passengers get a fair shake and has even gone so far as to beat up on NS and CSX if necessary and with the help of Olympia Snow, the Downeaster service was launched from the ground up.

When Ohio and Pennsylvania make those sort of moves, hopefully equipment will become available for additional trains. Until then, it is just a bunch of people chatting on the internet...without the benefit of an entire picture.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thirdrail should have ended that post with a /mic drop, because it's totally worth of one.

200.gif
 
There's no money, there's no resources (sleeper cars). So my point (which I think is valid) is is Amtrak using all of its money and resources wisely? Are they supporting routes that are less successful when those resources can be better spent on trains which can produce more R & R? I'm not going to mention which trains I am referring to even though you probably already know. Maybe the trains I have referred to in the past aren't the weak links of the Amtrak system? Do you really believe there aren't weak links? Do you not think there is a train out there that is wasting Amtrak's money (which technically is OUR money)? And one time I mentioned this point, I believe one poster said drop the Pennsylvanian and someone else said cut NEC service. That's not a personal attack?

And all of these funny photos/animations making fun of me or insulting me: I shouldn't be taking those personal? I don't mind people disagreeing with me but when they do those things, you better believe I will take it personal.

And if you really think a transfer is no big deal, you've obviously never missed one.

I resent people saying this is only about me. 4 million passengers boarded/left Amtrak trains at 30th St. Station last year. Over a half million left Lancaster and almost a half million left Harrisburg.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246

Would I benefit if this train comes about? Yes. Would I use this service? Absolutely. But maybe this service isn't just about me and that's probably why some posters upset me.
 
My image was not making fun of you. It was posted in support of Thirdrail's explanation about Amtrak, money, route proposals, etc.

Google "mic drop".
 
Honestly philly you and I are very similar. We have our differences mainly I'm a railroad entrepreneur and know the business and operations ends really well. But you do make valid points. Never said you didn't. And the reason I suggest the empire corridor is those people aren't using amtrak for commutes. The keystone is a commuter route mostly.
 
I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.
Seems like everytime I bring up PHL-CHI you always turn it into more service for upstate New York. I say let's use a schedule for PHL-CHI that serves Ohio at better hours and you say let's just run it up the Empire route instead between CLE and NYP.
This is because of the high Michigan - upstate NY and Ohio - upstate NY ridership demand, versus lower PHL-(Ohio/Michigan) ridership demand. If you're going to run one train heading east with daytime stops in Ohio, it should probably be heading to upstate NY if you can make the hours work. If you can't make the hours work, sending it to Pennsylvania makes sense. If we had TWO trains with daytime stops in Ohio, one should go to upstate NY and one to Pennsylvania, certainly.

Philadelphia definitely ought to have a direct train to Chicago, of course.

Really, we should have at least four night trains heading to the East Coast from Chicago:

-- overnight through Ohio to upstate NY (Lake Shore Limited)

-- overnight through Ohio to Pennsylvania (Broadway Limited)

-- overnight through Ohio & Pittsburgh to DC (Capitol Limited)

-- overnight through Cincinnati & West Virginia (Cardinal)

My inclination is to route nearly all of them through Michigan, unless / until the Fort Wayne line is rebuilt for high speed operation, at which point they should go that way.

Anyway, this would get the Northeast-Chicago service up to levels comparable to the Northeast-Southeast service

(which has Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Auto Train, Palmetto, Carolinian, and Crescent).

And it's clear there should be even more day trains for Ohio:

-- multiple trains per day Cincinnati / Columbus / Cleveland

-- daytime from Cleveland to Chicago

-- daytime from Cleveland to Michigan

-- daytime from Cleveland to upstate NY

-- daytime from Cleveland to Pennsylvania

-- daytime from Cincinnati to Chicago

-- daytime from Cincinnati to Pennsylvania

Though I haven't worked out the details. Kasich damaged Ohio massively by halting a well-developed Ohio Hub plan. Hopefully the Kasich regime can be removed from its death grip on the state eventually.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
However, it is about dollars and cents. Michigan bought out railroad from NS to improve service. New York leased a significant portion of railroad to improve service on the Empire Corridor. Massachusetts is eyeing more territory in addition to the route they already possess.
Massachusetts owns nearly all the track in the entire state at this point.

Connecticut is joining them. Virginia has made investments in their state to make sure rail passengers get a fair shake and has even gone so far as to beat up on NS and CSX if necessary and with the help of Olympia Snow, the Downeaster service was launched from the ground up.
Good summary. I'd add that state of California is funding a multibillion-dollar high speed rail plan, on top of three Amtrak services getting continuous improvements, and massive money into the "commuter" rails. Washington State bought and rebuilt a rail line for the Point Defiance Bypass project on the Cascades, and spent huge amounts of additional money on improvements and buying slots from BNSF. Illinois has put a lot of its own money in, buying tracks, upgrading tracks, rebuilding stations, etc. Minnesota -- Minnesota! -- put a huge amount into the Northstar line and Ramsey County put a lot into St. Paul Union Depot.
Pennsylvania *should* be one of those states -- but it hasn't been for most of the past. The Act which provided secure funding for SEPTA and reliable funding for Amtrak may herald a permanent change here. If it does, I would expect the state priorities to actually be Scranton and Allentown, both of which have been screaming for service for decades.

It's worth noting that New York has been in the same position as Pennsylvania, and arguably still is. Advocates literally spent *decades* trying to convince the state government to buy Poughkeepsie-Albany before they finally did. It's been like pulling teeth just to get stations upgraded. And the NYC Subway still isn't funded sufficiently to maintain a state of good repair. I hope both of our states see the light sooner rather than later.

When Ohio and Pennsylvania make those sort of moves, hopefully equipment will become available for additional trains. Until then, it is just a bunch of people chatting on the internet...without the benefit of an entire picture.
Ohio is a lost cause for at least 5 more years, unfortunately -- Kasich set progress back by a decade.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I never said it shouldn't be run. I'm opposed to cutting a current train to give a new one. And always will be. As for the route well there are some issues but they can be worked out. But the healthier route is the ex NYC that's just a fact. The PRR has lacked a train for too long. Never said there shouldn't be one. Just that it would take a lot of capital to make it happen.
Seems like everytime I bring up PHL-CHI you always turn it into more service for upstate New York. I say let's use a schedule for PHL-CHI that serves Ohio at better hours and you say let's just run it up the Empire route instead between CLE and NYP.
This is because of the high Michigan - upstate NY and Ohio - upstate NY ridership demand, versus lower PHL-(Ohio/Michigan) ridership demand.
Do we know that for a fact? Is this based on current CL/LSL demand? We know Michigan now has to do a Thruway bus to TOL before riding either the CL/LSL. If they wanted to do eastern PA they'd have to do Thruway Bus-CL-Pennsylvanian. It's one thing to do one connection but two? I would think the extra connection would make it less likely for passengers to want to travel to eastern PA. You can make the same case for travel to/from Chicago. I think CHI-HAR would be comparable if not higher than CHI-SYR or CHI-BUF (sounds crazy but Harrisburg serves more passengers than Buffalo) if both cities were on a level playing field. They're not. If we consider cities in NEC states, I would put CHI-PHL right behind CHI-NYP and CHI-WAS in terms of popularity if there was a direct route.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1246041980246

But thank you for supporting a return of the Broadway Limited.
 
I do support a return I just don't see it as the first service I would put in. The Empire Corridor vs the keystone is totally different. Same from the Buckeye corridor. The buckeye and empire serve more as inter city regionals or IC trains in Europe terms. The Keystone is more of a commuter train for Philly, HAR, and New York. Two different markets. More like an RE on the NEC and in septa area then a RB
 
I do support a return I just don't see it as the first service I would put in. The Empire Corridor vs the keystone is totally different. Same from the Buckeye corridor. The buckeye and empire serve more as inter city regionals or IC trains in Europe terms. The Keystone is more of a commuter train for Philly, HAR, and New York. Two different markets. More like an RE on the NEC and in septa area then a RB
I do realize Keystone really means HAR and east. I meant to say Keystone/Pennsylvanian then.
 
I would be interested in the most common city pairs. Something tells me they are mostly shorts. See it's not that I don't see a market for a NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI train. It's just I don't see the market as being as strong because of the commuter aspect. Plus that's four commuter operations to avoid. The LIRR, NJT, SEPTA, Metra. And five if you consider the keystones. The train via the NYC has the LIRR, Metro North, and Metra. And the distances are much longer then the Keystone corridor so it's more people accustomed to longs not shorts. And for a LD train your looking for longs. As you don't want to miss a higher long fare because it sold out of a short segment like PHL-Lancaster. If you could re educate the HAR market it could very well work. I've been wrong before. But operationally I see the three C service being easier from the NYC side of the line.

Only two major hosts so CSX and then NS for the last hundred miles. Instead of NS then CSX back to NS. That creates an operational problem. So my operations side says NYC for the routing to Ohio. Now for the BL I'm tempted to run it via Fort Wayne and the ex PRR. But that would need to be rebuilt. And unlike the others I oppose moving everything south to it or north to the Michigan line. But that could be the Central man inside of me.
 
I would be interested in the most common city pairs. Something tells me they are mostly shorts. See it's not that I don't see a market for a NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI train. It's just I don't see the market as being as strong because of the commuter aspect. Plus that's four commuter operations to avoid. The LIRR, NJT, SEPTA, Metra. And five if you consider the keystones. The train via the NYC has the LIRR, Metro North, and Metra. And the distances are much longer then the Keystone corridor so it's more people accustomed to longs not shorts. And for a LD train your looking for longs. As you don't want to miss a higher long fare because it sold out of a short segment like PHL-Lancaster. If you could re educate the HAR market it could very well work. I've been wrong before. But operationally I see the three C service being easier from the NYC side of the line.

Only two major hosts so CSX and then NS for the last hundred miles. Instead of NS then CSX back to NS. That creates an operational problem. So my operations side says NYC for the routing to Ohio. Now for the BL I'm tempted to run it via Fort Wayne and the ex PRR. But that would need to be rebuilt. And unlike the others I oppose moving everything south to it or north to the Michigan line. But that could be the Central man inside of me.
Would you consider anything from east of HAR to PGH long or short? While I'm sure there is more HAR/LNC passengers go east instead of west but they do show up in the top ten of R & R in the 2014 NARP report.

It's hard to judge HAR's and LNC's market for CHI if they have no direct route and unlike PHL they can't go directly to WAS and traveling all the way to NYP becomes a longer trip for them so they are probably stuck with the rathole in PGH at night for a transfer (west nearly 4 hours and east between 5:05 and 7:30am). Probably the best judge would be my 2004 file with my first post. 4.7% of 149,562 passengers (over 7,000) traveled HAR-CHI on the TR. Lancaster is not as much but 2.7% (over 4,000) is fairly decent. Remember any CHI-Keystone train would also give a second frequency from these eastern cities to PGH as well.

According to the attached NARP city data from 2004,

16,865 passengers rode the TR from HAR

12,676 passengers rode the TR from Altoona

12,451 passengers rode the TR from LNC

You can't come up with an exact figure for PHL on the TR but back in 2004 132,317 passengers rode on LD trains. 11 years later with one fewer LD train? 100,786.

Was there more demand on the LSL than the TR back in 2004? Of course. But the TR was significant too. Also, you are essentially saying let's double the LSL service over giving a first train from CHI to eastern PA.

I am assuming when you say "Central man" you mean the current CHI-TOL route through South Bend. Why give that route a third train when you can establish East Coast service to Michigan without a Thruway bus or re-establish train service in Fort Wayne? Don't forget Amtrak owns most of the Michigan route and speeds are potentially faster there.

It sounds like you just want to double or triple the frequency on every existing route before actually trying something new (or that hasn't existed for 10 years like the TR). Nope, I won't agree with a second LSL if it doesn't serve anything other than what the current LSL route does when there are other unserved or underserved markets out there.

NARPcities2004.pdf
 

Attachments

  • NARPcities2004.pdf
    2.6 MB · Views: 3
Last edited by a moderator:
Central as in the New York Central the Great Steal Fleet. I'm open to more service HAR-PGH. I'm fact I think that is exactly what's needed for the route at the current moment. Most EC trains are also Albany-NYP. Except for four if you count the LSL BUF-ALB. But the main reason I advocate it for the ohio three c route is basic operations. Easier being on one class one once then twice. Plus that It's one straight shot. You aren't detouring north to CLE then going back south. Unless you want to run the old PRR Cincinattian from PGH-Columbus skip CLE. I could see the Broadway coming back but I'm not sure how long that will be. Every year it's gone it gets harder. And we can't cut our current service to make it work. As current service does some major help.
 
You always talk about running Amtrak like a business and how they should do the most financially efficient thing, public service be damned. Well, I'm going to take the same position and say that logically that means that any additional east-west service should be routed via New York. There are less overhead costs required, far more flexibility to expand track capacity, an already established market of people who know about and ride trains, and New York State is more willing to play ball with Amtrak to fund upgrading the infrastructure. Surely a core principle behind a successful business is to maximize the utilization of overhead. Therefore, it stands to reason that Amtrak ought to better utilize the infrastructure in New York State, which has shown a greater willingness to invest in passenger rail, rather than trying to punch a train through Pennsylvania with tepid state support at best.
 
Central as in the New York Central the Great Steal Fleet. I'm open to more service HAR-PGH. I'm fact I think that is exactly what's needed for the route at the current moment. Most EC trains are also Albany-NYP. Except for four if you count the LSL BUF-ALB. But the main reason I advocate it for the ohio three c route is basic operations. Easier being on one class one once then twice. Plus that It's one straight shot. You aren't detouring north to CLE then going back south. Unless you want to run the old PRR Cincinattian from PGH-Columbus skip CLE. I could see the Broadway coming back but I'm not sure how long that will be. Every year it's gone it gets harder. And we can't cut our current service to make it work. As current service does some major help.
You do have to detour south from ALB to NYP. The only way to go straight through would be to go near I-80. Good luck getting any passengers between CLE and NYP then.

You always talk about running Amtrak like a business and how they should do the most financially efficient thing, public service be damned. Well, I'm going to take the same position and say that logically that means that any additional east-west service should be routed via New York. There are less overhead costs required, far more flexibility to expand track capacity, an already established market of people who know about and ride trains, and New York State is more willing to play ball with Amtrak to fund upgrading the infrastructure. Surely a core principle behind a successful business is to maximize the utilization of overhead. Therefore, it stands to reason that Amtrak ought to better utilize the infrastructure in New York State, which has shown a greater willingness to invest in passenger rail, rather than trying to punch a train through Pennsylvania with tepid state support at best.
Then forget any Ohio trains then.

As for New York, I wonder if they would support a train to CHI as much as they support Empire Corridor routes. Luckily for them they are on one end of the train. Pennsylvania would be in the middle of the train and could be paying money for passengers to go from CHI to NYP passing through PA completely. Would passengers enter/leave PA? Sure. But I imagine most states would be less inclined to pay for LD service that goes right through its state than one that either only serves its state or its state and a neighboring city/state. It's probably why NJ Transit will not do PHL to NYP even though they do serve both cities (NYP to Trenton, PHL to Atlantic City).
 
Remember that the Lake Shore Limited exists today because New York and Ohio funded and started it as an experimental 403(b) train when the Broadway was the only New York - Chicago train selected by Amtrak for continuation in 1971. So it is quite likely that they will step upto the plate again should that become necessary. New York does have an active and pro-active Rail office within NYSDOT, and maintains a very close relationship with Amtrak LD as well as Amtrak NEC BUs.That is why they have also managed to complete the Tier I EIS for HSR across New York State.

NJT does not do NYP to ACY mainly because it is hopelessly non-competitive when compared to buses running GSP, That is also why Amtrak's NYP - ACY service never stood a chance.
 
That and Atlantic City has failed by now or is failing. I took the ACES it was a great train and I love that city. But one thing to remember is that New York State has had their act together for years. PA has trouble finding theory for the one west of HAR train. So I strongly doubt they could find the money for a LD to Chicago. The route that the NYC has a lot of population centers west of HAR to PGH there are smaller cities that I don't believe are the same size. But I could be wrong. Someone correct me on that if I am.
 
Remember that the Lake Shore Limited exists today because New York and Ohio funded and started it as an experimental 403(b) train when the Broadway was the only New York - Chicago train selected by Amtrak for continuation in 1971. So it is quite likely that they will step upto the plate again should that become necessary. New York does have an active and pro-active Rail office within NYSDOT, and maintains a very close relationship with Amtrak LD as well as Amtrak NEC BUs.That is why they have also managed to complete the Tier I EIS for HSR across New York State.

NJT does not do NYP to ACY mainly because it is hopelessly non-competitive when compared to buses running GSP, That is also why Amtrak's NYP - ACY service never stood a chance.
I was hinting why NJT does not do NYP to PHL.
 
It's outside of their service area. So they really can't operate that except on deadheads I don't think. Could be wrong. But SEPTA and Amtrak might have issues with that. Competition wise
 
Back
Top