Second frequency on the LSL route...

So I got to thinking about this, because I was annoyed by the need to stay overnight in New York to catch any train leaving New York in the morning. (I'm coming from Syracuse.) And I thought, "there should be a train which runs overnight through upstate NY". And then I realized that this could of course be the much-requested train which serves Ohio in the daytime. Proposed schedule:

(Eastbound)

Chicago 9:30 AM

Toledo 3:20 PM

Cleveland 5:50 PM

Buffalo 8:51 PM

Syracuse 11:18 PM

Albany 3:45 AM

New York 6:23 AM

(Westbound)

New York 8:40 PM

Albany 12:05 AM

Syracuse 2:49 AM

Buffalo 4:59 AM

Cleveland 8:45 AM

Toledo 11:15 AM

Chicago 2:45 PM

The more I look at it the more I like it. I'd probably call it the "Ohio Express". It would need more single-level rolling stock, obviously, and I think it should run with sleepers. Amtrak can try prepackaged meals on it if they like (which would actually be better for me than the regular dining cars if they had ingredients lists).

When I'd looked at this before I'd thought it wouldn't be attractive to upstate NY passengers, but I just realized that it *would*, because it would fill a schedule gap which I am already complaining about. Buying a sleeper from Syracuse to NY would probably still cost less than an NYC hotel room, and less than a short flight, so the schedule would be attractive for day trips on a tight schedule from central and western NY to NYC -- despite the late boarding times.

Given that it would also be much stronger than the LSL in the Ohio market, this seems like potentially a really powerful ridership generator. And it doesn't require any new stations or any new track, though I'm sure CSX and NS would want some upgrades. (Second platforms at Buffalo and Syracuse are needed anyway.) The "second frequency" effect can be really powerful for ridership.

Furthermore, eastbound passengers who misconnect in Chicago due to late-arriving Western trains would have a morning departure option instead of having to wait 24 hours.

I'm sure there are tweaks which could be made to the schedule. This is a nice schedule, partly because times at Buffalo are good. Time could be cut out by not switching cars at Albany, but cutting out too much may actually mess the schedule up. It may be desirable to move that dwell time into the Albany-NYC section to give more "wiggle room" to accomodate overnight work windows on that section.

I also think that this could be a successful train, although I would prioritize NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI. I believe that the train would perform better if it was moved back about 3 hours going westbound. ALB is overnight either way, but Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo could get better times. I would also move eastbound back about 30 minutes, although that would only be a small change.

For Philly Amtrak Fan, I want to note that this would be independent to and in addition to any Broadway Limited or Three Rivers route.

I'm a big believer in lots of NYC-Chicago service. If Amtrak's best area is the NEC and extensions, and its third-best area is the Chicago hub, it makes sense to tie them together as much as possible to create an unstoppable juggernaut. (And unlike tying these areas to its second-best area, California, this is relatively straightforward with areas denser than France in between NYC and Chicago.)

neroden said:

For Philly Amtrak Fan, I want to note that this would be independent to and in addition to any Broadway Limited or Three Rivers route.

Click to expand...

TY.

But just like my dream for the Philly train running between PGH and PHL overnight, I think one thing we can also shoot for on a second LSL would be running between BUF and NYP overnight. I think your eastbound schedule works well for overnight BUF-NYP service (and doesn't leave SYR too late so you and other SYR residents could use it for an early morning trip to NYP). I agree with Brian about moving the westbound back so it would arrive in BUF after 5am (and SYR after 3am). ALB is my least concern when it comes to the graveyard shift since they already have not only plenty of trains to NYP but a good LSL time.

brianpmcdonnell17 said:

I also think that this could be a successful train, although I would prioritize NYP-PHL-PGH-CHI. I believe that the train would perform better if it was moved back about 3 hours going westbound. ALB is overnight either way, but Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo could get better times. I would also move eastbound back about 30 minutes, although that would only be a small change.

Click to expand...

Did you mean moving the westbound FORWARD three hours so it departed NYC at 11:40 PM? Because moving it BACK three hours to depart at 5:40 PM would destroy one of the major purposes of the schedule (day trips to NYC where you could have dinner in NYC and leave after dinner), and would ruin the Buffalo morning arrival time, by putting into the wee hours, and make Syracuse times worse too.

Let's try moving the westbound FORWARD three hours, so you can see a show in NYC and depart after the show:

(Westbound)

New York 11:40 PM

Albany 3:05 AM

Syracuse 5:49 AM

Buffalo 7:59 AM

Cleveland 11:45 AM

Toledo 2:15 PM

Chicago 5:45 PM

I kind of love this schedule! You can still connect to the CONO and the Hiawatha.

I'm also not sure whether you meant to move the eastbound to a 9AM departure or a 10AM departure. Either would work.

I'm rethinking the name. I realize I want to be able to advertise it as the sleeper from Western New York to NYC, which I think requires more marketing than the Ohio daytime service does. So it should have a name which promotes that, which means putting "Ohio" in the name is out.

OK, for purposes of discussion, this is now the Great Lakes Express.

I'm pretty sure you could get support from all the cities on the route (from Utica to Chicago, anyway). You could probably get support from Governor Cuomo, who's trying to establish "cred" in upstate NY. There's even a chance of getting Ohio state support despite Kasich, because they wouldn't need to put in much money, and daytime service through Ohio will be supported by state legislators. Indiana might be an unexpected source of support too, and Michigan might find it easier to extend a Wolverine to Toledo to connect with *this* train rather than the LSL & CL.

If you were to leave Chicago a half hour later by that schedule and were running late, you might have to hold for the departing Maple Leaf before the Empire Connection Tunnel, or possibly at Spuyten Duyvil depending on timing

PVD said:

If you were to leave Chicago a half hour later by that schedule and were running late, you might have to hold for the departing Maple Leaf before the Empire Connection Tunnel, or possibly at Spuyten Duyvil depending on timing

Click to expand...

That's probably fine, really.
After looking at 9 AM, 9:30 AM, and 10 AM departures I like 9:30 best but it just doesn't matter. They're all OK and if we make any progress on this I'm sure it'll be tweaked by half an hour to accomodate CSX or NS or Metro-North or something anyway.

The second train is certainly a good idea. Would add a second connection train ALB <> BOS just like the present LSL when Albany finally gets fixed. That would really help on the BOS end for the many persons who cannot get good air travel options east of Cleveland. The overnights would allow for full days BOS and west.

As well the end times at NYP, BOS, CHI allow for additional high equipment utilization with other single level trains.

I like it, I can already think of a few times where I have used the plane in one or both directions fron Rochester or Syracuse for lack of a rail alternative.

What about splitting the train in Cleveland and running a section to CIN. Or splitting a car or two off at TOL to forward to Detroit area. Isn't one of the most requested unserved pairs Upstate NY to Michigan.

Seaboard92 said:

What about splitting the train in Cleveland and running a section to CIN. Or splitting a car or two off at TOL to forward to Detroit area. Isn't one of the most requested unserved pairs Upstate NY to Michigan.

Click to expand...

Yes, but:

(1) going to Cincy is a whole order of magnitude more expensive, most likely. My remit here in this idea is "no new trackage, no new stations".

(2) the schedule on this is actually looking remarkably tight to do everything it needs to do. It can't afford the extra hours to go via Michigan. I'd rather run this train on the Indiana route and the LSL through Michigan.

I'm going to throw out a more general question. There are several "long distance" routes which could really use two a day instead of one. I'm going to omit Florida services for now (they have two, more further north) The Crescent could use an extra Atlanta-NY frequency, but nothing can be done until there's a new Atlanta station. Where else is "doubling up" a plausible possibility which could get really solid ridership? I'm thinking Chicago-Denver. Also Chicago-MSP. Coast Daylight, obviously. Maybe the Cardinal, but it's not even daily yet. Phildaelphia-Pittsburgh, certainly. Anywhere else?

neroden said:

Seaboard92 said:

What about splitting the train in Cleveland and running a section to CIN. Or splitting a car or two off at TOL to forward to Detroit area. Isn't one of the most requested unserved pairs Upstate NY to Michigan.

Click to expand...

Yes, but1) going to Cincy is a whole order of magnitude more expensive, most likely. My remit here in this idea is "no new trackage, no new stations".

(2) the schedule on this is actually looking remarkably tight to do everything it needs to do. It can't afford the extra hours to go via Michigan. I'd rather run this train on the Indiana route and the LSL through Michigan.

I'm going to throw out a more general question. There are several "long distance" routes which could really use two a day instead of one. I'm going to omit Florida services for now (they have two, more further north) The Crescent could use an extra Atlanta-NY frequency, but nothing can be done until there's a new Atlanta station. Where else is "doubling up" a plausible possibility which could get really solid ridership? I'm thinking Chicago-Denver. Also Chicago-MSP. Coast Daylight, obviously. Maybe the Cardinal, but it's not even daily yet. Phildaelphia-Pittsburgh, certainly. Anywhere else?

Click to expand...

How about a second SWC that doesn't divert from the transcon (faster)?

All sorts of possibilities in the Chicago-Northeast region, combinations of the Capitol Limited, Lake Shore Limited, proposed Broadway Limited/Three Rivers, and route through Michigan, but you've gone over many of those.

City of New Orleans maybe? Currently 3 trains/day north of Carbondale, perhaps go with 2 trains/day south to Memphis, if not New Orleans?

Southwest Chief Chicago-Kansas City? Maybe extended to Newton and down through Wichita to Oklahoma City? KS and OK occasionally flirt with the idea of a Newton-Wichita-Oklahoma City train, usually as an extension of the Heartland Flyer to meet and connect with the Southwest Chief in Newton, but a new train would mean different times in OKC.

My idea is to skip Kansas and Colorado for the mostly double track raceway that goes through Texas and Oklahoma.

Oh, I totally forgot about the CONO. A "second CONO to Memphis" has even been proposed by some government official, I forget who. CN is currently the least cooperative railroad so this is probably gonna be much harder than the other ideas.

I was kind of thinking of typing out a little advocacy leaflet called "Two A Day" with the best of these proposals.

I like the proposed CHI-NYP schedule, but I have one question for neroden:...Would you rely on that train from SYR to NYP to connect with this year's Autumn Express?

Don't get me wrong...I love your proposal for the second train on this and other routes mentioned in the thread...but wonder if you would chance making that connection, if it did exist.

railiner said:

I like the proposed CHI-NYP schedule, but I have one question for neroden:...Would you rely on that train from SYR to NYP to connect with this year's Autumn Express?

Don't get me wrong...I love your proposal for the second train on this and other routes mentioned in the thread...but wonder if you would chance making that connection, if it did exist.

Click to expand...

Two hour connection arriving eastbound? Prrrrobably. That's as close as I'd cut it, but two hours isn't bad.

Leaving westbound with the 5 hour connection, *definitely*.

neroden said:

PVD said:

If you were to leave Chicago a half hour later by that schedule and were running late, you might have to hold for the departing Maple Leaf before the Empire Connection Tunnel, or possibly at Spuyten Duyvil depending on timing

Click to expand...

That's probably fine, really.
After looking at 9 AM, 9:30 AM, and 10 AM departures I like 9:30 best but it just doesn't matter. They're all OK and if we make any progress on this I'm sure it'll be tweaked by half an hour to accomodate CSX or NS or Metro-North or something anyway.

Click to expand...

That is true. I would not worry about such issues right now. The major issue is keeping away from NYP Commission Hours, and as long as that is adhered to, the rest can be adjusted 5mins this way and that, or as you say, even half hour this way or that. Such will happen inevitably. Of course the worst OTP destroying single track bottleneck - between ALB and SDY, will soon be history.

BTW, I think this train is quite feasible technically. The NS/CSX politics is a different matter. But if this could be pulled off it would likely be quite successful. And yes, it should be quite independent of any Broadway Limited, or Three Rivers or whatever.

By all means the Cardinal route needs a second train. You can't give all the important places good times. Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Charleston-New River Gorge-Charlottesville-D.C.-NYC. They just don't 'one size fits all' into a decent schedule.

The current 'solution' is to pretend that Cincinnati isn't very important and stop there in the dead of night. But just as Cleveland-Toledo deserves daylight service, Cincinnati deserves daytime stops.

Let's be clear that we're not talking about cannibalizing one route to feed another one. We're talking about nearly doubling Amtrak service (other than the NEC). We'll need big orders for new equipment soon.

The Cardinal in all honesty is my favorite NEC-CHI train. And it would be profitable today if it were running daily. Seems like an easy fix.

I'm not sure it would be profitable, but it would almost assuredly be much better. 3 days a week just doesn't cut it, either on the Card or the TE/SL.

Funny. I thought this post was about increasing the frequency on the LSL route. And keep in mind MY previous response was consistent with the topic.

The LSL would also definitely get a good boost as well. Every time I price that train it's always in one of the higher buckets. Now I believe that is mostly intrastate traffic in New York but also a lot of sleeping car passengers as well. A second LSL would then if it ran with the same consist. Would add additional 36 roomettes, six bedrooms, and three H rooms. Which should help make 48/49 more affordable. But depending on the load factor of the existing sleepers one might not need three sleepers on a new LSL.

Perhaps a bag-dorm, this would provide additional rooms to sell without the offsetting cost of an additional SCA.