Jump to content




Photo

Adding More Through Car Service to LD Trains


  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#41 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 24 April 2016 - 08:55 AM

I don't think you're in minority about LD trains.  I think you are in the minority about having all LD routes be one seat trips.  That's just not going to happen.

 

Not necessary all of them but I think there are at least a few where there would be significant gains.

 

It seems to me that providing service where there is none at present, should take priority over tinkering around with schedules in areas where people already have service, just to give a one seat ride to a few.

 

Wouldn't disagree on the new areas getting service. Would disagree on it just being a "few".

 

Just because you don't like transfers does not mean that when they occur it is like the second train just simply doesn't exist anymore in the eyes of the consumer. I know that people do SPO and east to PDX by way of SEA, some due to scenery, others because they weren't able to purchase a direct ticket, and some simply because they wanted to be on a train longer (gasp!).

 

But the transfer does negatively affect ridership. Who said that? Amtrak.

 

(Capitol Limited PRIIA 2010: https://www.amtrak.c... ... ed-PIP.pdf)

"Recognizing the importance of connecting ridership at Pittsburgh, the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the Capitol Limited focuses on leveraging that strength. In particular, the PIP proposes establishing direct service between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, and Philadelphia/New York, along with other eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey points. This would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains during the night in Pittsburgh. This can be done by establishing through service with a set of cars to be switched between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh, giving passengers a single seat / bed ride with much greater comfort and convenience. Market research has shown that as much as 40 percent of potential ridership and revenue between any two points can be lost if passengers must physically get off one train and onto another no matter how “convenient” that swap might appear. The PIP will provide better service to those passengers who now connect at Pittsburgh by offering through coaches and adding new sleeping car service. This change will directly affect customer satisfaction, which should help to drive CSI scores higher. In addition, it is expected to attract more than 20,000 new passengers who do not use Amtrak today because of the inconvenience and discomfort of changing trains and accommodations in Pittsburgh in the dark. As a result, through service will increase revenue and improve cost recovery. "

 

The Amtrak Chicago Gateway report (https://www.amtrak.c...inal-Report.pdf) showed some of the various transfer numbers to/from the CL. 22,386 between the CL and Pennsylvanian alone, 15,988 between the CL and SWC, and 15,212 between the CL and CZ. I'd be curious at some of the other numbers in the Amtrak system. I would guess LSL-SWC and LSL-CZ are higher than their CL counterparts because the LSL has a lot more riders. I'd also guess there's a lot of transfers between BOS-NE and the SM in NYP or WAS (maybe even to the SS although that schedule is way worse). I would say once you get above 20,000 or even 15,000, Amtrak has to at least think about a one seat ride possibility to smooth travel experiences. And at least once one point Amtrak has thought of CL-Pennsylvanian, BOS-Florida, and even CL-SWC (there is a separate thread about it). Or make the transfer less unbearable. At least waiting in Union Station or Penn Station is better than in the Pittsburgh (emphasis on the first syllable) Am-Shack.    

 

Am I the only one here that's had a missed connection before?


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#42 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 02 May 2016 - 06:02 PM

Normally people say go to Plan B but for me this is probably Plan K by now...

 

Northbound:

Use the 174 and 164 as through cars off the 98. Keep the same schedules but require the trains to wait in RVR for the 98. The SM would split at Staples Mill for BOS service. The 174/164 will stay regional trains between RVR-BOS while the 98 will continue north to NYP. Passengers from Florida wishing to go to WAS, PHL, NYP or any current SM stop will still be able to take the 98 to their destinations and the train will only discharge passengers at those stops and may leave before the schedule. Passengers going from Florida to BOS/New England must take the 498 (or transfer in NYP). 

 

Southbound:

Use the 93/83/161 as through cars to the 97. The 161 (Sa/Su) only go to WAS but they can be extended to RVR, replacing 71/87. The 83 (F) currently goes to Newport News but that will have to be cut (the 133 from NYP to WAS can be extended to Newport News). These trains will serve as regionals from BOS to RVR and will be attached to the 97 (which must wait for the respective regional train) at RVR. The 97 will only receive passengers up to RVR. Passengers from BOS/New England will use code 497.

 

Intra-NEC traffic is now allowed on the Palmetto and ridership significantly increased when this happened. Here, the regionals still exist and function as regionals but then are joined/split at RVR for travel to Florida. 

 

I think this setup is similar to the proposed CL-Pennsylvanian through cars. The obvious negative is the regionals are subject to delays. This is more of an issue from Florida than from Boston. 

 

ASM Data: https://juckins.net/...connections.php

2015 (Jan-Dec) delays

98 to 174: "Missed 14 out of 239 connections, or 6%"

98 to 164: "Missed 8 out of 109 connections, or 7%."

 

So 6% of the time the 174 will be delayed out of Richmond. But even if the 98 is really late, the 84 is a little over an hour later out of RVR than the 174 so (space permitting) the wait wouldn't be that long even if the train is severely delayed. This is actually better than 30-42 since passengers on the 42 will have to wait for the 30 no matter how late it is.

 

93-97 was missed only 4% (7 of 182) of the time and only one was after February so the weather was probably a factor in the other 6.

 

Meanwhile, passengers from the 98 now have to transfer to New England. Assume they use 98-174 in NYP as listed in the timetable. That connection was missed "17 out of 234 connections, or 7%." 

 

So either you make 6% of 174 passengers wait for the 98 or 7% of passengers miss the 174 and have to wait for the next train (or the next one after that, depending on how late the 98 is). If you choose the through car option, the passengers waiting for the 174 can (space available) jump on the 84 if the 174 is more than an hour late. Plus if the 98 delays the 174 by less than an hour it's just a delay where if the delay is in NYP passengers have to change tickets in NYP. And if the 174 becomes a through car from the 98, experienced passengers would avoid 174 altogether (on M-F 86 leaves Staples Mill at 6:00am and 84 leaves at 8:18am). 

 

So unless you think 30-42 is going to be a problem, why is 98-174 going to be a problem?

 

I'm sure there other details to iron out but I think it's worth it. Plus, little or no service would be cut and the regionals will still run with only a 7% possibility of a delay from the SM.


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#43 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 02 May 2016 - 11:00 PM

How can I put this nicely?

 

You have no idea what you're suggesting.

 

So, instead of nitpicking, I'm just going to make it easy and ask you to answer these questions:

 

How many cars can Boston's S&I building accommodate for servicing? This is important since it appears you are adding cars to an existing regional set.

 

What does train 133 turn for and what equipment will you name for replacing the missing set of equipment if you send it to NPN?

 

What does 161 turn for on weekends and what equipment will now represent the train if you extend it, especially since 71 goes to NFK. Speaking of 71, if you extend 161 to NFK, how will that effect the crew turn?

 

What makes you think CSX will accommodate a train sitting in RVR, awaiting a connection that may be hours late? Additionally, what does that do to the riders of the EXTREMELY busy regional train as 93/99 and 164/174 are among the top "heavies" on the New England division. Speaking of Richmond, who is performing the switching of this equipment considering there are no really switching crews in RVR? I suppose the road crew, but since some of the trains don't change crews, what happens if the connecting train leaves? What will you do with the late train?

 

How much more will you have to pay Metro-North since you're adding cars to a train?

 

We won't even ask where you're plucking cars for this through train but once you answer these questions, we'll take it to the next level.


Edited by Thirdrail7, 02 May 2016 - 11:05 PM.

They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#44 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 12:14 AM

I'm certainly in the minority here but I feel that long distance service on Amtrak is important. At times I feel some of you if you were starting from scratch wouldn't run any trains more than 300 miles (the trains OTP goes down the longer it gets). Here's the opposing view. If a location is 2-3 hours away, I can reasonably drive the distance in the same (or less) time if parking was not an issue (I recently went up to New York and it parking was an issue so I did take a train). For a long distance trip like Chicago or Florida even if I drove I'd probably get tired and have to make stops (possibly overnight) and the train would be comparable in terms of time and I don't have to stop several times for rest/gas. While I certainly appreciate the trains to New York or Washington, the trains to Florida and (if it exists) Chicago are more valuable. If I could get one more train to Philly, why should I want another train to DC when there are already tons of them? Is there a big difference between 20 trains to DC and 21? There is a big difference between one daily to Chicago and none. I'd even say a second Pittsburgh train is significant. So when it comes to Boston, I think they should have choices rather than 19 of the same route that serves the same cities. I get the Acelas are huge money makers. I'm not sold on the Regionals that travel south of DC. Certainly Virginia should have train service (especially since they pay for it) but I would imagine 90% of the demand in Virginia is to New York and south. 

 

NARP Ridership Data:

http://www.narprail....trains_2015.pdf

VA Service/Richmond: WAS 46,798, PHL 11,862, NYP 39,298, NHV 1,475, BOS 905

VA Service/Norfolk: WAS 41,444, PHL 8,664, NYP 29,161, NHV 1,110, BOS 579

 

So why do they need to hog precious BOS-NYP slots for a few extra thousand riders (and I believe those numbers are for multiple daily trains)? You can talk about all of the OTP problems with the Silver Meteor but BOS-RVR is almost 600 miles already. Once the train goes south of WAS or north of NYP then you're adding quite a bit of miles. I think the Virginia trains would still be effective if they only ran NYP-Virginia. It doesn't even have to be all of them terminating in NYP, just enough to make BOS-Florida a reality. I would say even if you just ran BOS-WAS trains in place of BOS-Virginia trains it would be an improvement for New England.

 

 

I don't know what happened to the post I made regarding this, but I already mentioned this to you on another board. It is NOT a few extra thousand riders. The numbers you posted are for the Virginia based riders. What you are leaving out are the THOUSANDS of NEC only riders that ride the same train but travel between WAS and BOS. 94 and 93 are the busiest of the "heavies," but you won't see the numbers on the Virginia data rail sheet. These trains are basically three large swaths of riders: NPN/RVR-WAS, WAS-NYP, NYP-BOS. The trains are routinely full over all segments.

 

 

The Boston corridor could actually use more trains. Indeed, they added an additional Acela trip on Saturdays since there wasn't enough regional equipment. Adding a car or two off a late, long distance train isn't going to do much and neither will hogging a precious slot with a long distance train.

 

You apparently don't understand the equipment utilization or route numbers.

 

 


The reasoning behind my latest proposal: Inland Route instead of Shore Line East because of the capacity limitations. I certainly didn't see all the issues with the Inland route but then again pick your poison. And the Inland Route was certainly Amtrak's choice in the Summer of 2000: http://www.timetable...0521n&item=0034

 

 

Your sense of history is skewered. The inland route was naturally the route of choice in 2000 since the North End was still being electrified in preparation of the Acela service. Capacity was extremely limited so this pushed additional trains to the inland route and  indeed, some trains on the Shore Line had to use the First District route (Dorchester Branch) to Boston.

 

Now, the line is open, electrified and is dispatched and maintained by Amtrak. You don't have to worry about CSX's heat restrictions, fees or slow terrain which takes roughly and hour and fifteen minutes longer. Feel fee to peruse the timetable museum and look at the eye popping time difference.

 

 

 


I also proposed a through car branch instead of running the whole SM up to Boston and not being able to service it there which has been pointed out to me on multiple occasions (who says I don't listen?). With all the problems with splitting/merging, can you imagine the LSL or EB without it (well technically LSL is going through it now and there's a whole thread about it)? Sure it's a hassle but without it Portland and Boston wouldn't be able to go through to Chicago and Dallas/Austin wouldn't be able to go through to Los Angeles. And I don't think through car branches in the future are dead, Amtrak proposed through cars off the Capitol Limited in 2010. Have things gotten much worse in just six years? I'm hoping the problems with the LSL don't become permanent and Boston will have no service at all.

 

We'll see what happens with ALB, but if you notice, they aren't rushing to put it back. This is because it is a time and labor consuming operation, particularly with the blue flag rules. Things can change a lot in 6 years. In that time, crews that performed this type of work could have been ELIMINATED.  Again, cars need facilities and crews to handle them and once Amtrak started pushing fixed consists, they have been cut. I was talking to a superintendent a while back and he recalled having six electricians for the Southern Crescent (which was about 21 cars at the time.) Now, he said he's lucky if he has six electricians between the yard and station on his busiest tour.

 

 


You're never going to convince me that Boston-Florida service isn't worthwhile. Difficult? Sure. Are we lacking in money/equipment? Absolutely. But I'd be willing to guess that more than 1,600 passengers a year travel to/from Florida and BOS (not even counting the rest of New England) and are forced to transfer. I'd imagine there's more interest in New England to go to Florida than to go to Norfolk. If the Silver Meteor is as late as some of you say, connection nightmares and rescheduling in NYP for the New England passengers are certainly not uncommon. Plus, there's the baggage inconvenience. Maybe you do have to make some sacrifices with our current limitations to gain something more valuable. 

 

You can say what's the point to discuss projects that aren't feasible now? I still think the ideas should be active or if and when Amtrak can take care of them people will forget. I'm worried that's happening to my other big wish list project. The longer these things drag on, so many people just forget the old trains even existed. At least there's movement towards New Orleans-Florida again.

 

There may be progress at the local level and I do appreciate Thirdrail7's efforts but I feel there needs to be progress at the national level and LD level too.

 

I never said it wasn't worthwhile, Indeed, I started a thread about it years ago.  I think it is a good idea...in the future. However, it is contingent on many things including modification of Southampton Yard to accommodate the service, an increase of slots on the Shore Line and more equipment to make it worthwhile.

 

What I do not advocate is sacrificing a regional for a LD train and I'm not a fan switching cars to between regional and LD trains. An easier fix is allocating bags for the New England Division to aid with luggage and transfers.


They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#45 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 03 May 2016 - 05:13 AM

How can I put this nicely?

 

You have no idea what you're suggesting.

 

If this is you being nice, I really hope I never see you being mean. If you can't make your points without personally attacking or insulting me, you're better off not making any comments at all. Just because I'm not Sheldon Cooper when it comes to train knowledge doesn't mean I'm stupid.

 

 

I never said it wasn't worthwhile, Indeed, I started a thread about it years ago.  I think it is a good idea...in the future. However, it is contingent on many things including modification of Southampton Yard to accommodate the service, an increase of slots on the Shore Line and more equipment to make it worthwhile.

 

What I do not advocate is sacrificing a regional for a LD train and I'm not a fan switching cars to between regional and LD trains. An easier fix is allocating bags for the New England Division to aid with luggage and transfers.

 

Finally, at least you are addressing the issue. 


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#46 Thirdrail7

Thirdrail7

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,938 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 07:20 AM

 

How can I put this nicely?

 

You have no idea what you're suggesting.

 

If this is you being nice, I really hope I never see you being mean. If you can't make your points without personally attacking or insulting me, you're better off not making any comments at all. Just because I'm not Sheldon Cooper when it comes to train knowledge doesn't mean I'm stupid.

 

 

This was indeed nice and seemingly, accurate.  Since it is accurate, how can you consider it a personal attack? It is quite clear that you never actually considered what happens with the equipment when you makes these proposals. I've mentioned it before. As such, I just cut to the chase since I was short on time. I will now expand so you are not insulted.

 

You have no idea what you are suggesting...because you do not understand the consequences of your actions. My eyes immediately focused on train your trains and noticed there is no balance. Trains do not exist in a vacuum nor do they simply fall from the sky at various locations. There needs to be balance. Where is the balance? You say 'just extend 133 or leave this train here or shift this train to that schedule' as if there isn't a consequence.  It is funny you brought up 83 on Fridays. Take a good look at the schedule for NPN on Fridays. Did you notice NPN finishes with an extra set of equipment? What is the balance? What happens to that equipment? These are things that must be considered.

 

Since you haven't provided the answers to what you'll do for equipment if you alter the fleet locations, in my estimation it means you do not understand what you are actually suggesting or the snowball you're creating. That does not make you stupid nor did I suggest it does.

 

If you choose to take it personally, that's on you. The internet is a rough place, I guess.

 

 

 

 

 

I never said it wasn't worthwhile, Indeed, I started a thread about it years ago.  I think it is a good idea...in the future. However, it is contingent on many things including modification of Southampton Yard to accommodate the service, an increase of slots on the Shore Line and more equipment to make it worthwhile.

 

What I do not advocate is sacrificing a regional for a LD train and I'm not a fan switching cars to between regional and LD trains. An easier fix is allocating bags for the New England Division to aid with luggage and transfers.

 

Finally, at least you are addressing the issue. 

 

 

I'm not sure that I've said anything different. I stated earlier in this thread that adding a baggage car would help the situation and even mentioned that I started a thread years ago about sending New York based Long Distance service to Boston. I also delivered what I thought was a solid idea (on paper) for adding more service on the inland route. 

 

What I will not do is ignore the realities of a situation to fit my agenda. There are limitations and your ideas often create more questions than answers which may be the reason why some of your proposals don't actually exist.


They say laughter is the best medicine. Obviously they never posted on AU.


#47 west point

west point

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,001 posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 09:30 AM

This poster believes that there is a need to separate short time improvements with long term solutions.  After V-2 SL cars are delivered there are no provisions to acquire any new single level coaches before 2019 - 2021.  Source FY 2016 budget request.   That really limits what can be done in the short term.  Do we like that ?  HECK NO ! @ ! !



#48 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:00 PM

 

 

I'm not sure that I've said anything different. I stated earlier in this thread that adding a baggage car would help the situation and even mentioned that I started a thread years ago about sending New York based Long Distance service to Boston. I also delivered what I thought was a solid idea (on paper) for adding more service on the inland route. 

 

 

Can you find and link that thread here so we can see it?


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#49 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,894 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 03 May 2016 - 09:47 PM

Albany at least definitely has the facilities and crews to do switching, since they have to switch locomotives anyway. Actually, adding the Boston section to the NY section is not significantly more complicated in personnel terms than attaching the P42s to the New York section. With the prior track arrangement, the movement tied up two out of three platform tracks and far too much of the station throat, but that won't be an issue once all the current work is *done*.

Long-term decisions should never be made for the operational convenience of the employees. Revenue generally outweighs costs. It's one thing to eliminate switching at a location where you can get rid of an entire crewbase, but at a location like Albany where the locos for the LSL have to be changed anyway, it's asinine to avoid running through cars for the convenience of the employees.

The same would apply at Chicago, except for two large issues: the divide between bilevels and single-levels, and the issue of schedule recovery when there are so many different hosts and such long runs. Back when railroads were run by competent people and ran on *time*, however, there were through cars going every which way, and that was because you can charge higher prices for an uninterrupted trip.

Amtrak has been quite rightly moving away from fixed consists, with cutoff cars used intermittently over the last few years at Reno, Denver, and St Louis, and consistently at St. Paul. The ability to generate more revenue with less equipment (less than running excess cars along the whole route) is valuable. Through cars are also revenue generators, in the right circumstances.

Edited by neroden, 03 May 2016 - 09:54 PM.

--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#50 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 10 January 2017 - 09:05 AM

Getting back to other through cars, what's the holdup for the CL-Pennsylvanian? You would think it would be the easiest of all to do. It's going on seven years since Amtrak proposed it.


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#51 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 10 January 2017 - 09:33 AM

Installation of the crossover at Pittsburgh station and availability of Sleepers.



#52 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:24 AM

When the thru cars at PGH are implemented will the WAS section of the CL remain Superliner equipped? I know that it is possible because of the transition sleeper, but I could also see Amtrak changing the whole train to single level to make it easier for them.

It is disappointing that such relatively small issues are holding it up for so long. If the crossover issue was fixed, the train could run without sleepers temporarily or even run the transition sleeper and a Superliner coach to PHL (I don't know it there is sufficient facilities in PHL or not) until the new Viewliner sleepers are available.

Edited by brianpmcdonnell17, 10 January 2017 - 10:32 AM.

Trains travelled: Capitol Limited WAS-CHI, Carolinian CLT-RGH, Coast Starlight SJC-LAX, Crescent BAL-ATL, Empire Builder MSP-CHI, Empire Service NYP-NFL, Lake Shore Limited BOS-ALB, Maple Leaf ALB-NYP, Northeast Regional FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, Pacific Surfliner LAX-ANA, Piedmont RGH-DNC, Silver Meteor ORL-NYP, Silver Star FTL-WAS, 2016 Autumn Express NYP-HAR-NYP

Upcoming New Routes: Pennsylvanian NYP-PGH (July), Cardinal CHI-WAS (July), Lake Shore Limited NYP-CHI (December), California Zephyr CHI-RIC (December), Coast Starlight SJC-SEA (December), Empire Builder SEA-MSP (January).

Non Amtrak: Atlanta Streetcar, Caltrain, CTA, DC Streetcar, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, LIRR, MARC, MARTA, MBTA Subway, Metra, Metrolink, METRO Transit Light Rail, Miami Metrorail, Muni Metro, NJT Commuter Rail, North Star, NYC Subway, PATH, River Line (NJT), SEPTA Regional Rail, SEPTA Subway, South Shore Line, Sunrail, TECO Streetcar, Tri-Rail, Washington Metro

#53 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:49 AM

I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#54 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,499 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:51 AM

I believe Amtrak in the TE/SL PRIIA wanted to actually remove the through cars. Why is this better? Or is it a cost cutting move?


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#55 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,894 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 11:18 AM

The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.

I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.
--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#56 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2017 - 11:37 AM

The San Antonio switching movements are REALLY slow. Slower than the Albany switching. There are probably various reasons why, the biggest being that Albany still has a yard and a lot of trains and a lot of employees, and San Antonio doesn't. The track configuration might also be suboptimal.

I'm not sure whether the Spokane switching movements are as slow as the San Antonio switching movements.


Part of the reason San Antonio takes so long is that the thru sleeper from the TE is removed from near the front of the consist, behind the baggage and transition sleeper. This train is not set up for switching, unlike the EB and LSL. The TE also sits there a long time before the SL even arrives. I believe that the EB switching more closely resembles that in Albany-Rensselaer than San Antonio.
Trains travelled: Capitol Limited WAS-CHI, Carolinian CLT-RGH, Coast Starlight SJC-LAX, Crescent BAL-ATL, Empire Builder MSP-CHI, Empire Service NYP-NFL, Lake Shore Limited BOS-ALB, Maple Leaf ALB-NYP, Northeast Regional FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, Pacific Surfliner LAX-ANA, Piedmont RGH-DNC, Silver Meteor ORL-NYP, Silver Star FTL-WAS, 2016 Autumn Express NYP-HAR-NYP

Upcoming New Routes: Pennsylvanian NYP-PGH (July), Cardinal CHI-WAS (July), Lake Shore Limited NYP-CHI (December), California Zephyr CHI-RIC (December), Coast Starlight SJC-SEA (December), Empire Builder SEA-MSP (January).

Non Amtrak: Atlanta Streetcar, Caltrain, CTA, DC Streetcar, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, LIRR, MARC, MARTA, MBTA Subway, Metra, Metrolink, METRO Transit Light Rail, Miami Metrorail, Muni Metro, NJT Commuter Rail, North Star, NYC Subway, PATH, River Line (NJT), SEPTA Regional Rail, SEPTA Subway, South Shore Line, Sunrail, TECO Streetcar, Tri-Rail, Washington Metro

#57 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,337 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 10 January 2017 - 11:47 AM

If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling. :)
 

I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.


But the crossover was there back then. It was removed after that. It needs to be put back before any of this can happen conveniently.


Edited by jis, 10 January 2017 - 11:50 AM.


#58 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,894 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 10 January 2017 - 06:29 PM

If you think TE/SL is slow you should have seen what went on in Ogden and later in SLC with 5/25/35 and 6/26/36 car shuffling. :)
 

I've said it before that sleepers shouldn't be required. If a passengers wants a coach seat from PHL-CHI they just book the through route (for sake of argument, 429). If he/she wants a sleeper, then you can give them a coach seat PHL-PGH and a sleeper on the CL PGH-CHI (probably has to be two separate tickets). Would having sleepers PHL-CHI be better? Sure. But once the switching capability comes, I'd rather not have to wait for the sleepers (especially since I most likely wouldn't use a sleeper anyway). Amtrak did start the Three Rivers back in the 90's without sleepers and after they split it off the CL the whole train had no sleepers.


But the crossover was there back then. It was removed after that. It needs to be put back before any of this can happen conveniently.


Restoring the crossover at Pittsburgh was estimated at, if I remember correctly, $50,000.

This is PEANUTS. This can't possibly be what's delaying the through cars. I mean, I could pay for that personally; so could Wick Moorman; it could be crowdfunded no problem...

There must be something else delaying the through cars at Pittsburgh.
--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#59 Bob Dylan

Bob Dylan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 15,596 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin Texas
  • Interests:Passenger Trains/Travel/Sports(except Soccer)/Government-Politics/Reading/Old Buildings
    Movies/Music/Unicorns and Ancient Aliens!

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:06 PM

Yep, it's the Lack of Equipment( Viewliner IIs are only Years Late!😬)plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!

Lots more than $50,000 involved!

Edited by Bob Dylan, 10 January 2017 - 10:07 PM.

 
"There's Something About a Train! It's Magic!"-- 1970s Amtrak Ad
 
".. I ride on a Mail Train Baby, can't buy a thrill.."--I said that!
 
"..My heart is warm with the friends I make,and better friends I'll not be knowing,
Yet there isn't a train I wouldn't take,No matter where its going!.." -Edna St. Vincent Millay

#60 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 455 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 10 January 2017 - 10:14 PM

Yep, it's the Lack of Equipment( Viewliner IIs are only Years Late!😬)plus there would need to be a Switching Crew in Pittsburgh in addition to the Crossover and any other needed track work and any Ransom,er Payments the Class Is would ask for!

Lots more than $50,000 involved!

Even if other additional costs pushed the cost above $50,000, it would still be relatively inexpensive relative to the ridership gained. There is no reason to wait for new equipment. As has been stated, running only through coaches at first would be acceptable until the new sleepers are available. I presume whatever coaches will be used for the service are already available, as there are not any replacememts coming anytime soon.

Edited by brianpmcdonnell17, 11 January 2017 - 05:05 AM.

Trains travelled: Capitol Limited WAS-CHI, Carolinian CLT-RGH, Coast Starlight SJC-LAX, Crescent BAL-ATL, Empire Builder MSP-CHI, Empire Service NYP-NFL, Lake Shore Limited BOS-ALB, Maple Leaf ALB-NYP, Northeast Regional FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, Pacific Surfliner LAX-ANA, Piedmont RGH-DNC, Silver Meteor ORL-NYP, Silver Star FTL-WAS, 2016 Autumn Express NYP-HAR-NYP

Upcoming New Routes: Pennsylvanian NYP-PGH (July), Cardinal CHI-WAS (July), Lake Shore Limited NYP-CHI (December), California Zephyr CHI-RIC (December), Coast Starlight SJC-SEA (December), Empire Builder SEA-MSP (January).

Non Amtrak: Atlanta Streetcar, Caltrain, CTA, DC Streetcar, Hudson-Bergen Light Rail, LIRR, MARC, MARTA, MBTA Subway, Metra, Metrolink, METRO Transit Light Rail, Miami Metrorail, Muni Metro, NJT Commuter Rail, North Star, NYC Subway, PATH, River Line (NJT), SEPTA Regional Rail, SEPTA Subway, South Shore Line, Sunrail, TECO Streetcar, Tri-Rail, Washington Metro




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users