Lake Shore Limited and Train Length Issues

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.
LSL desperately needs a few more cars.
While the LSL does need more cars, as I understand it the current consist length is already pushing the limits of what two locos can provide. And the NY section needs to make do with just one unit total ALB-NYP, with 1000 hp less than each P42, while also providing HEP. Its not going to be easy to extend the LSL very much.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. Your understanding of the situation is incorrect.

Two P42-s can easily pull 18 cars. One will reach the HEP limit of 17-18 cars before one hits the tractive effort limit. So no it is nowhere near any limit as far as locos go.

The New York section is getting close to platform length limit though.

An FL-9 with half the power of a P32ACDM used to pull essentially what the NY section is today. What suffers is performance and hence the running time between NYP and ALB has to be stretched out a bit.
 
I think the length at many LSL stops is an issue. In the winter, it was even worse at SYR because only the covered part of the platform would be cleared right after a storm. I walked through snow and ice many times to the closest car before the end of the platform, then continue back through the train. Sometimes my SCA would meet me to grab my bags to make sure I didn't fall. BUF platform always seemed long enough, even in deep snow but additional cars might be a problem.
 
The issue with the Lake Shore is platform length. It's already amtraks longest long distance train.

Think about the consist which I'll list.

P42dc (BOS-CHI)

P42DC (BOS-CHI)

Viewliner II Baggage car (BOS-CHI live bag ALB-CHI)

Viewliner I Sleeper (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet I Business/Cafe (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Diner/sleeper lounge (NYP-CHI)

Viewliner I sleeper (NYP-CHI)

Viewliner I Sleeper (NYP-CHI)

Viewliner II baggage (NYP-CHI)

Total length 1,243 feet. That's a monster of a train that really can't be lengthened. So a baggage dorm makes a lot of sense on this train because you can add rooms without adding to the already maxed out train length.

Most of the stations do not have a super long platform. I know Chicago can accommodate more, Toledo has a decent size, Cleveland I think is maxed out. I don't know much about upstate NY stations. ALB can accommodate a few more I think but not a lot. And penn has length restrictions.
 
I don't know much about upstate NY stations. ALB can accommodate a few more I think but not a lot.
The full Lake Shore Limited already occupies the entire platform at Albany-Rensselaer with parts of the baggage cars hanging over the edge. However, if the departure time was moved earlier westbound and the arrival time moved later eastbound, all boarding and detraining may be able to occur while the train is in separate sections.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's already amtraks longest long distance train
*Auto Train
I don't count the Auto Pain because it's completely separate.
You might not count it but it still exists and is three times the length of the Lake Shore.
And how many of those cars are pax cars? I don’t think the auto racks need access to platforms. Plus the Auto Train only makes I stop between start and end points.
 
It's already amtraks longest long distance train
*Auto Train
I don't count the Auto Pain because it's completely separate.
You might not count it but it still exists and is three times the length of the Lake Shore.
And how many of those cars are pax cars? I don’t think the auto racks need access to platforms. Plus the Auto Train only makes I stop between start and end points.
The Auto Train runs 16-18 passenger cars. It is the longest Amtrak passenger train, even ignoring the auto racks.
 
I leave the auto train out of the running because it's a dedicated consist running between with no intermediate stops for passengers, with dedicated stations. Where as the rest of them make multiple stops. With different platform lengths across the system.
 
The issue with the Lake Shore is platform length. It's already amtraks longest long distance train.

Think about the consist which I'll list.

P42dc (BOS-CHI)

P42DC (BOS-CHI)

Viewliner II Baggage car (BOS-CHI live bag ALB-CHI)

Viewliner I Sleeper (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet I Business/Cafe (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (BOS-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Amfleet II Coach (NYP-CHI)

Diner/sleeper lounge (NYP-CHI)

Viewliner I sleeper (NYP-CHI)

Viewliner I Sleeper (NYP-CHI)

Viewliner II baggage (NYP-CHI)

Total length 1,243 feet. That's a monster of a train that really can't be lengthened. So a baggage dorm makes a lot of sense on this train because you can add rooms without adding to the already maxed out train length.

Most of the stations do not have a super long platform. I know Chicago can accommodate more, Toledo has a decent size, Cleveland I think is maxed out. I don't know much about upstate NY stations. ALB can accommodate a few more I think but not a lot. And penn has length restrictions.
That's only thirteen cars, not really that long. I guess I am showing my age, because I remember the 18 car Broadway/Cap limited (remember when it had 5 baggage cars full of mail?) and the 17/18 car Silver Star and Meteors when they had their Tampa sections.
 
I think Amtrak wants to avoid extra stops if possible at as many stations as possible. At Maricopa in Arizona, we stopped three times for passengers to get off (Sleeper - Coach - Sleeper) which took overt 25 minutes for a planned short stop.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think Amtrak wants to avoid extra stops if possible at as many stations as possible. At Maricopa in Arizona, we stopped three times for passengers to get off (Sleeper - Coach - Sleeper) which took overt 25 minutes for a planned short stop.
In a lot of places (pre mass baggage closings), the three stops were coach, sleeper and baggage.
 
Since they are neither going to get longer platforms at most places, nor are they going tog et the wherewithal to run additional trains on most routes, the only feasible way to increase capacity is to lengthen trains. This should be accounted for in time tables by actually allocating more time for station work at stations that are known to require multiple spots. Not adding capacity because it requires multiple spots is not a reasonable answer.
 
Utica and Buffalo platforms are super-long but also low-level. Rochester and Syracuse are long but not long enough for the LSL; they need two to three more carlengths each, which is possible but expensive.

Hudson and Rhinecliff are actually serious problems, being low-level and short.
 
How expensive can basic platforms be? A decent platform could be something as simple as a double or triple wide sidewalk. I can understand if they haven't enough room/length for a platform (like Miami), but if you just install a concrete platform it can't cost that much. Is it the ADA requirements that require super wide platforms or some other esoteric requirement? It must be a lack of space, not a lack of concrete. There isn't a lot that can be done in that case, obviously.

Utica and Buffalo platforms are super-long but also low-level. Rochester and Syracuse are long but not long enough for the LSL; they need two to three more carlengths each, which is possible but expensive.

Hudson and Rhinecliff are actually serious problems, being low-level and short.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
How expensive can basic platforms be? A decent platform could be something as simple as a double or triple wide sidewalk. I can understand if they haven't enough room/length for a platform (like Miami), but if you just install a concrete platform it can't cost that much. Is it the ADA requirements that require super wide platforms or some other esoteric requirement? It must be a lack of space, not a lack of concrete. There isn't a lot that can be done in that case, obviously.

Utica and Buffalo platforms are super-long but also low-level. Rochester and Syracuse are long but not long enough for the LSL; they need two to three more carlengths each, which is possible but expensive.

Hudson and Rhinecliff are actually serious problems, being low-level and short.
If they don't own the real estate things can get quite expensive. ADA does have requirements for platform width as well as the yellow bumpy strips along the edge. Lighting ain't cheap either, and would be considered mandatory in this day & age. Things can add up fast...
 
Amtrak could take some lessons from Metro north on how to build relatively inexpensive high level platforms relatively quickly. So could NJT
default_smile.png
 
RPC, I kind of figured that it was the lack of real estate that might be the killer on longer platforms at most problematic stations. I don't know how much property the railroads own on either side of the tracks outside of the station areas, but it can't be a lot. It just seems like they could shoehorn in a 12' wide platform, and even spend the extra couple thousand dollars for a streetlight/flood light every 50' or so. It sounds like 170' would make a big difference and that is just 170 * 12 = 2,040 sq ft of concrete.

Jis is talking specifics about existing newer platforms which is way over my level of knowledge, but he is noting examples of relatively inexpensive platforms being built, which makes me wonder why Amtrak doesn't simply bite the bullet and do the work at the Amtrak stations that need a longer platform. They aren't made of money, but these are inexpensive fixes that can make a noticeable difference in how the trains run. And build it with rough-ins for supports for later improvements like awnings and electronic info signboards.

How expensive can basic platforms be? A decent platform could be something as simple as a double or triple wide sidewalk. I can understand if they haven't enough room/length for a platform (like Miami), but if you just install a concrete platform it can't cost that much. Is it the ADA requirements that require super wide platforms or some other esoteric requirement? It must be a lack of space, not a lack of concrete. There isn't a lot that can be done in that case, obviously.

Utica and Buffalo platforms are super-long but also low-level. Rochester and Syracuse are long but not long enough for the LSL; they need two to three more carlengths each, which is possible but expensive.

Hudson and Rhinecliff are actually serious problems, being low-level and short.
If they don't own the real estate things can get quite expensive. ADA does have requirements for platform width as well as the yellow bumpy strips along the edge. Lighting ain't cheap either, and would be considered mandatory in this day & age. Things can add up fast...
 
Syracuse was designed with the Empire service in mind. Now they have a long platform, but only a portion is covered. To get the platforms extended is problematic since Amtrak do not own the station in this case. Probably a long term project if it even got that far. For me the LSL would either double spot or the Conductors boarded passengers at available doors and you walked to your car. I found if the train was late they seemed to get everyone on the train in one spot and get moving as quickly as possible, especially in the winter.
 
Part of the problem though, is that many of the critical stations are no longer owned by Amtrak, and so the platform is not theirs to build or expand/extend. Both the funding and the actual execution is dependent upon someone else getting the work done.
 
Back
Top