Adding More Through Car Service to LD Trains

I have asked several times about extending LD trains and one of the most common responses was that only a few stations are able to service LD trains.

On the other hand, the through car model seems to work very well for some of the LD trains. The Lake Shore Limited has a Boston leg, the Empire Builder has a Portland leg, and there are through cars connecting the Texas Eagle and the Sunset Limited. Amtrak has discussed at least three more through car possibilities: a Pennsylvania leg of the Capitol Limited, a St. Louis leg of the Cardinal, and a Los Angeles leg of the California Zephyr.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PRIIA-210-CapitolLimited-PIP.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/536/878/PRIIA-210-Cardinal-PIP.pdf

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/652/435/PRIIA-210-CaliforniaZephyr-PIP.pdf

In addition, All Aboard Ohio has suggested through cars off the LSL to serve CLE-CIN (http://freepdfhosting.com/cf26514bc8.pdf) although they proposed switching the schedule which hurt or eliminate possible transfers in CHI.

I think this is a good way to add city pairs and potential one seat rides to existing LD routes without requiring transfers. In the example of the Capitol-Pennsylvanian, no new train miles are required as the two trains in question are already running. The negative is that you are holding one train back and delaying it if the other portion is delayed (ex. the Pennsylvanian must wait for the CL). I would still think the through cars is a net positive (and Amtrak agreed even though they haven't implemented the through service yet).

Some more possibilities I came up with:

Boston section of SM (Split/Merge anywhere between NYP and RVR)

Richmond section of CL

Oklahoma City section of TE (Just merge the TE and HF)

San Jose section of CZ (Split/Merge at EMY or SAC)

San Diego section of SWC

San Diego section of CS (Split/Merge at Santa Barbara or LAX)

For some of these, simply split/merge two trains similar to the proposed Capitol/Pennsylvanian through cars. Others require some more creativity. Example: Terminate 86/164 in NYP, Run 498 NYP-BOS in its place between the cities. Essentially you are splitting the 86 and 164 in NYP and passengers on those trains would have to transfer to go north of NYP (although there will still be other direct trains from Virginia to New England including the 498 for passengers in Richmond, Fredricksburg, and Alexandria). For some, you may just want to "add" the through branch as an additional frequency between the two cities (not practical for NYP-BOS because of capacity limitations).

For some of these, instead of splitting a train so one leg goes to one city and one goes to another (LSL), have a reduced consist continue to another city and leave the rest of the LD train in the regular terminal point (similar to TE/SL).

Hopefully this will expand the Amtrak LD system without drastically increasing costs.

You could also add new legs to LD trains on tracks/routes that Amtrak doesn't already use (ex. SLC-LAX) but that would require a bit more money.

To do a through car from the Zephyr to LA, or vice versa, would mean an overnight layover. Unless you're thinking about spending 12 to 16 hours in the yard or on the siding, it would be the same as you have now. Even the Coast Daylight wouldn't change it -- that's an even longer gap. You'd need a third, overnight train between LA and the Bay Area. That'll be a while coming, long enough, I think, that high speed rail will be on the horizon, rendering it moot. Yes, I mean that long . Continuing the Zephyr on to LA would be likelier, I think. That's not to say likely.

You could tack a Zephyr car onto a Capitol Corridor to get to/from San Jose. If you did it at Sacramento, it shouldn't delay the CC, unless going eastbound the CZ was so late that they had to hold up the last run to San Jose to do it. It would have more and more convenient stops than just continuing the Zephyr to San Jose. It would be a question of demand. Same would be true of doing a CS/Surfliner swap at Santa Barbara, although the southbound timing would be tighter -- only one chance to do it.

I think a Capitol Limited to Silver Star connection would work well. The schedule currently allows 1.5 hours going North/West and 2 hours going South/East. This would likely be as fast as a route via New Orleans and it would serve Tampa and Miami. The 92 schedule would likely have to be moved up 30 minutes, which would not have much of an impact on any major cities. The best way to do this would probably we to flip the consist of the Capitol Limited. The trans dorm and a coach could be added to the back of the Silver Star. While I have heard many people recommend making the Capitol Limited single level, I would prefer to see the City of New Orleans or Auto Train go single level if necessary.

One thing you can rest assured.... the Auto Train is never going single level before every other Superliner train has gone single level. Many other things will before it does, because it runs maxed out at full Superliner capacity. Making it single level will cause significant reduction in offered capacity, and hence revenue.

Besides, as long as the CONO extension is on the table it is unlikely that anyone will touch the Atlantic Coast service too much.

jis said:

One thing you can rest assured.... the Auto Train is never going single level before every other Superliner train has gone single level. Many other things will before it does, because it runs maxed out at full Superliner capacity. Making it single level will cause significant reduction in offered capacity, and hence revenue.

Besides, as long as the CONO extension is on the table it is unlikely that anyone will touch the Atlantic Coast service too much.

Click to expand...

That makes sense about the capacity of the Auto Train, I did not think about that. But what about the City of New Orleans? I have never ridden on it but I think it makes more sense to have a Superliner option to the East Coast. I also think the mountain scenery is considered better on the CL, making the Lounge useful. Is there any way the Capitol Limited could be changed from 3 to 2 consists? That would likely be all the equipment needed, as this would only require 4 transition sleepers and 4 coaches, and I know I have seen trains in the past with a baggage car and no transition car. The CL and SS combination would take 35 hours CHI-JAX, allowing for 2 hours in WAS. The CONO takes 19.5 hours CHI-NOL, and I'd assume that would also have a least an hour in NOL. That means if it takes it any more than 14.5 hours to JAX the route via WAS would be faster. I am not saying I don't support the CONO extension, but I think this could be a short term solution and both could run together in the future. The only major cities they would share would be CHI, JAX, and ORL so I think they could both be successful.

jis said:

One thing you can rest assured.... the Auto Train is never going single level before every other Superliner train has gone single level. Many other things will before it does, because it runs maxed out at full Superliner capacity. Making it single level will cause significant reduction in offered capacity, and hence revenue.

Besides, as long as the CONO extension is on the table it is unlikely that anyone will touch the Atlantic Coast service too much.

Click to expand...

That makes sense about the capacity of the Auto Train, I did not think about that. But what about the City of New Orleans? I have never ridden on it but I think it makes more sense to have a Superliner option to the East Coast. I also think the mountain scenery is considered better on the CL, making the Lounge useful. Is there any way the Capitol Limited could be changed from 3 to 2 consists? That would likely be all the equipment needed, as this would only require 4 transition sleepers and 4 coaches, and I know I have seen trains in the past with a baggage car and no transition car. The CL and SS combination would take 35 hours CHI-JAX, allowing for 2 hours in WAS. The CONO takes 19.5 hours CHI-NOL, and I'd assume that would also have a least an hour in NOL. That means if it takes it any more than 14.5 hours to JAX the route via WAS would be faster. I am not saying I don't support the CONO extension, but I think this could be a short term solution and both could run together in the future. The only major cities they would share would be CHI, JAX, and ORL so I think they could both be successful.

It is not a question of supporting or opposing. It is a matter of taking facts on the ground into consideration. There is a process in place with a study completed for the possibility of extending the CONO. OTOH, there is not anything going on regarding doing anything with the CL.

It is almost certain that Amtrak will make no change to anything unless someone pays for it. There is a political constituency for the CONO extension. There is none for extending the CL to anywhere.

I know the CONO extension has a lot of support and the CL extension has not even been mentioned, but it does not require a lot of support. The train already exists, the stations are in place, and if the CL could be brought down to 2 sets CHI-WAS, would require no extra equipment. None of this is true about the CONO. All that would be required is slightly more maintenance costs, but the Silver Service consists change train length often already so I do not see why this can't be done. And if this can't be done, do you think a 92 to 29 connection would be reasonable? All that would be changed is 30 minutes in the schedule. 30 to 91 is alrwdy a guaranteed connection.

Yup, getting a connection in place is desirable. it could be achieved either by moving 92 earlier or pushing 29 departure a little later. Both requires CSX to agree to the change. I have no idea how easy or complicated that is.

One thing about pulling 92 earlier may be that it then either has to wait in Washington DC or it might arrive into new York within the tail end of the evening rush. I don;t know for sure if that would be an issue, but it could be. If it is then pushing 29 later by half hour would seem to be the weay to go, though that could make 29 and 49 run too close to each other for NS to handle at the west end. Again, no idea if it matters or not.

If they are both equally acceptable to CSX and NS I would prefer 92 moving earlier. It would give JAX and SAV slightly better times and would prevent PGH from moving past midnight. For a 2 hour transfer, 92 would have to be moved up 33 minutes. The current 92 arrives WAS at 2:38 and leaves around 3:08. No Amtrak trains leave between 2:05 and 3:00, so a 2:35 would probably work fine. It still wouldn't arrive NYP to at least 6:00 and would travel opposite peak direction so it should fit in. If for some reason it could not, WAS could probably hold it for an extra 30 minutes.

My proposal for BOS-Florida service:

Southbound:

Train 93 (M-Th) runs NYP-Richmond Staples Mill Rd

Train 83 (F) runs NYP-Newport News

Train 161 (Sa-Su) runs NYP-WAS

Northbound:

Train 86 (M-F) runs Richmond Staples Mill Rd-NYP

Train 164 (Sa-Su) runs Richmond Staples Mill Rd-NYP

497 and 498 train times approximate.

497 (93's times): BOS 9:30am, Providence 10:11am, New Haven 12:09pm, NYP 1:48pm-3:15pm, ORL 12:49pm next day, MIA 6:39pm next day

498 (86's times): MIA 8:10am, ORL 1:35pm, NYP 11:00am-12:30pm next day, New Haven 2:08pm next day, Providence 3:47pm next day, BOS 4:35pm next day

Boston/New England passengers trade a Virginia train for a Florida train which serves many of the cities the Virginia trains served.

Virginia passengers can still take the same trains truncated in NYP to Washington, Philadelphia, and New York. Richmond and Fredricksburg passengers can still take 497/498 to/from BOS and New England.

Another possibility would be to split the SM in Richmond with 497/498 making all of the stops of 93 and 86 and 97/98 making only the current SM stops north of Richmond. So a passenger from PHL to Florida would take 97 (fewer stops) but a passenger from BWI to Florida would take 497 since 97 wouldn't stop there. With this option, more passengers between NYP and Richmond can gain direct service to Florida without the main SM stopping there.

Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?

keelhauled said:

Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?

Click to expand...

None of the trains truncated are Acelas. Essentially the trains (all regional) questioned are split in NYP. From the Boston/New England end, they keep most of the same stops and gain a lot more. From the Virginia end, they keep all the stops up to NYP. I don't see any major losses.

keelhauled said:

Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?

Click to expand...

Or we can cut all long distance trains to Washington DC have all passengers transfer to a NEC train. Save a lot of equipment, just need to find the space for the maintain buildings / tracks.

Philly Amtrak Fan said:

keelhauled said:

Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?

Click to expand...

None of the trains truncated are Acelas. Essentially the trains (all regional) questioned are split in NYP. From the Boston/New England end, they keep most of the same stops and gain a lot more. From the Virginia end, they keep all the stops up to NYP. I don't see any major losses.

Click to expand...

Either you run them in the long distance pattern on the Corridor, receiving passengers only southbound and discharging northbound, or you keep them scheduled as a Regional carrying local passengers. As a long distance, it would be a terrible idea in both directions, considering how few people would ride a Meteor extension, a complete waste of a bridge slot. As a Regional schedule, you can't credibly serve intra-NEC traffic at the tail end of a train that will routinely run late. 98 arrived into NYP more than half an hour late 29 times in the last two months. That kind of timekeeping is unacceptable for a train serving local passengers. Either way, passengers traveling intra-NEC lose. And there are a lot more of them than you'll ever get coming from Florida.

Well I know Amtrak once wanted to have a direct BOS-Florida train and they had the same problems north of BOS so I'm guessing they had enough passengers from New England to Florida.

Guess why they stopped doing that at the first opportunity.

jis said:

Guess why they stopped doing that at the first opportunity.

Click to expand...

You're assuming every Amtrak decision makes sense.

Wasn't it The Champion that ran Boston-Florida in the early Amtrak years?

keelhauled said:

Philly Amtrak Fan said:

keelhauled said:

Why in the world world would you use one of the limited NYP-BOS slots on a thinly patronized last leg of a long distance train instead of a considerably more popular and useful Regional or Acela?

Click to expand...

None of the trains truncated are Acelas. Essentially the trains (all regional) questioned are split in NYP. From the Boston/New England end, they keep most of the same stops and gain a lot more. From the Virginia end, they keep all the stops up to NYP. I don't see any major losses.

Click to expand...

Either you run them in the long distance pattern on the Corridor, receiving passengers only southbound and discharging northbound, or you keep them scheduled as a Regional carrying local passengers. As a long distance, it would be a terrible idea in both directions, considering how few people would ride a Meteor extension, a complete waste of a bridge slot. As a Regional schedule, you can't credibly serve intra-NEC traffic at the tail end of a train that will routinely run late. 98 arrived into NYP more than half an hour late 29 times in the last two months. That kind of timekeeping is unacceptable for a train serving local passengers. Either way, passengers traveling intra-NEC lose. And there are a lot more of them than you'll ever get coming from Florida.

Click to expand...

It would be irrelevant for the southbound leg. As for the northbound leg, unless you are coming from Florida then ride one of the other 18 trains going north to BOS then.

There has to be some way to find out how many passengers transfer from the SM to New England.

We are all ignoring a very important item. That is maintenance. In the pre Amtrak legacy there were car repairmen at many locations for long distance trains. There were enough trains and spare equipment located at those locations so trains ( cars ) could get minor problems that might sideline a car fixed and continue on a trip.

Have no idea today where there is maintenance on the NEC but would suspect WASH, BAL, PHL, NYP, New Haven, BOS. Any more ?

On LD routes there are very few maintenance locations. Those are planned where the opposite directions trains meet with some exceptions. Example Florence where Auto Train scheduled at about same time as well as Meteor. Other locations with maintenance are often where a train set overnights such as Lynchburg, Fort Worth.

west point said:

We are all ignoring a very important item. That is maintenance. In the pre Amtrak legacy there were car repairmen at many locations for long distance trains. There were enough trains and spare equipment located at those locations so trains ( cars ) could get minor problems that might sideline a car fixed and continue on a trip.

Have no idea today where there is maintenance on the NEC but would suspect WASH, BAL, PHL, NYP, New Haven, BOS. Any more ?

On LD routes there are very few maintenance locations. Those are planned where the opposite directions trains meet with some exceptions. Example Florence where Auto Train scheduled at about same time as well as Meteor. Other locations with maintenance are often where a train set overnights such as Lynchburg, Fort Worth.

Click to expand...

On my plan, only a smaller consist goes north to BOS, the main SM still ends and is serviced in NYP (similar to the LSL).

Which portion(s) of the NYP-BOS route is subject to the 19 cars per day rule? Is NYP-New Haven-Springfield-BOS subject to it? If not, I would push for that route for the through cars to the SM.

New Haven, Providence to Boston is subject to a limit the trains agreement. The major issue is boats traffic. One of bridges just got rebuilt, however another one is due. Time to bit the bullet, tunnel or go high.

The inland route is losing most Amtrak service soon, as the State of Connecticut is getting ready to run a commuter type service on those tracks.

Not sure if CT is get the title to those tracks, but that would be the time to bring up the limit on trains going on the shoreline.

I think we might confusing terms. "Inland Route" refers to Boston-Worcester-Springfield-New Haven. The improvements going on currently north of New Haven in on track known as the "Springfield Line". Corrections welcomed there.

The restrictions east of New Haven state that no more than 39 trains--not cars--operate on that

portion of the railroad. The boaters and hence the Coast Guard are responsible for imposing that restriction. Money talks!

This is the first I've heard of Amtrak reducing the number of trains between Springfield and New Haven.