Expanding Some Exisitng Amtrak Routes Along the NEC?

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Running the Cap up to NYP only makes but so much sense. Believe me, I've thought it over. Problem number one is that you'd have to re-equip the train; problem two is that you'd have to spin the train around in WAS. I forget how the B&O handled this back when the Cap was their train (it originally ran to NYP; when the access agreement into NYP expired, it ran to Hoboken), but they clearly did something about it (probably used a now-missing wye or something like that).

Don't they currently run the Cardinal north from DC to NYP? Other than the obvious fact that they would have to go from Superliners to Viewliners, why would that be different than what they have to do now for the Cardinal?

 

[Anderson]

The Cardinal enters the station from the southern side (i.e. from Alexandria) while the Cap enters from the northern side (i.e. from Silver Spring/Rockville).

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The schedule would've been:

PHL 1:05am, HAR 3:05am/3:35am, PIT 8:53am/9:05am, CLE 12:38pm, TOL 2:41pm, CHI 6:47pm

CHI 1:30pm, TOL 7:02pm, CLE 9:15pm, PIT 12:43am/12:58am, HAR 6:17am/6:50am, PHL 9:08am

...

Could you imagine the increased business between Cleveland/Toledo and Chicago if these trains ran?

The westbound schedule would have been terrible for PHL business. The eastbound schedule is better, but should depart CHI later. I have proposed that a restored TR/BL westbound schedule could depart NYP circa 7-7:30 PM (after the peak rush hour), PHL circa 9:15 PM, HAR 11 PM, then do the overnight portion from HAR to CLE, get to CLE in the early morning to act as a CLE-CHI daytime corridor train. Eastbound depart CHI maybe 3 to 4 PM for an evening arrival at TOL & CLE, so like the westbound train the overnight segment is effectively from CLE to HAR and gets to PHL and NYP after the morning rush hours. This train would not have same day connections from the western LD trains. But still could connect to most Midwest corridor routes, so it still reaches much of the Midwest market.

The assumption was that the Skyline Connection would have been in addition to the Three Rivers which at the time was still running. I don't know how they would've justified it financially. So no one in Philly would take it unless they wanted to go west to Cleveland or parts of Ohio. They could still take the Three Rivers to CHI, the Three Rivers or Pennsylvania to PIT. If it was PHL to TOL you either would have to leave PHL at 1:05am and get into Ohio in the morning or leave PHL in the afternoon and arrive in Ohio in the middle of the night so you'd have to pick your poison.

If there was only one train from PHL to CHI via HAR/PIT/Horsehoe Curve, I'd agree the old Three Rivers schedule or connecting the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol would be the best.

 

[Ryan]

Running the Cap up to NYP only makes but so much sense. Believe me, I've thought it over. Problem number one is that you'd have to re-equip the train; problem two is that you'd have to spin the train around in WAS. I forget how the B&O handled this back when the Cap was their train (it originally ran to NYP; when the access agreement into NYP expired, it ran to Hoboken), but they clearly did something about it (probably used a now-missing wye or something like that).

There's still a wye at WAS. The logical way to do it when coming in is to stay on CSX from the Metropolitan to the Capital Sub. Then you can back into the station and be set up to pull straight out of the terminal onto the NEC.

 

[Thirdrail7]

On the NEC-North bit: I don't disagree with adding Acelas, but I'm getting seriously worried that Amtrak has begun to look at "add Acelas" like a D&D player might look at "cast fireball": An all-use solution to the NEC at a bare minimum. Unfortunately, while numerous financial metrics of the Acela are impressive there is a significant niche and justification for adding Regionals, not least of which is not watching Amtrak become utterly unaffordable for folks either unable to get their businesses to spring for the Acela and potentially defecting to bus operators. If Amtrak does this, they're going to over-saturate the region with Acelas [which don't go much faster than Regionals north of NYP] and either pricing will become indistinct between the two (already happening) or quite a bit of traffic is going to get squeezed out. Both might happen if pricing becomes indistinct at too high of a price point, but at a bare minimum the Acela/Regional distinction will become a total muddle up there.

Why is that a bad thing? Well, the Acelas are never going to have much over 400 seats/train in capacity while a 10-car Regional can get to 638 (more if you tinker with the consist and sell seats in a half-cafe instead of having a full cafe). At 11 seats that becomes around 710 and at 12 it becomes either 782 (10 coach cars, 1 BC, 1 cafe) or 762 (10 coach cars, 2 BC/Cafe cars). If pricing distinction falls apart, then those Regionals start earning more than the Acela does on a per-slot basis: If a 700-seat Regional earns $0.50/seat-mile ($350/train-mile) then a 400-seat Acela has to earn $0.875/seat-mile to match (a 75% premium). If the Acela cannot command that premium over the Regional but you end up with similar load factors then the Regional is arguably a better deal for Amtrak. Put more plainly, there are clear situations where Amtrak would do better mass-selling cheaper seats than trying to force an upsell for less seats.

Your summary assumes that there is more coach capacity to be had. It is getting to the point that the only thing left to send above NHV is an Acela set unless you're going to just abandon the ridership and/or hope people will move to the later trains.

There's a slight difference in philosophy between Zone 1 Acelas and Zone 2 Acelas, particularly during off peak and weekend trips. Sometimes, it is not about distinction of services. It is merely moving sheer amounts of people. There have been days where they've sent Acela sets with no up charge into Zone 1 just to deal with the capacity issues. By putting BOS, RTE, and PVD on Acela and saying "make a run for it," you open up seats on a regional for your MYS, KIN, and NLC passengers (as an example.) This is major factor in the winter, when Boston has a "hard" 9 car limit, so 10 and 11 cars aren't even feasible.

So while you are probably spot on with the regional making more the an Acela, without it, you may a significant source of additional revenue and riders?

 

[neroden]

Other than the obvious fact that they would have to go from Superliners to Viewliners, why would that be different than what they have to do now for the Cardinal?

There aren't enough Viewliners. Amtrak needs to order at least 9 more sleepers (probably more like 12) to re-equip the Capitol Limited, as well as getting hold of cafes and coaches.

 

[Palmetto]

The discussion has been quite interesting. My only addition to it is that I've always felt the Boston-NYP segment of the NEC was the "orphan child". And for the poster who referred to the "congestion" between NHV and BOS. I believe it's rather a question of the Coast Guard limiting the number of trains crossing some of the drawbridges rather that it is too many trains for the infrastructure that's currently in place.

 

[Anderson]

Ok, I think I need someone to explain the capacity limits on NEC-North in a bit more depth, particularly the bit about 9-car limits in the winter. I've been able to discuss capacity limits on all the other major stations (NHV, STM, NYP, NWK, TRE, PHL, WIL, BAL, and WAS) but BOS is north of the detailed maps I've seen of the various stations and I go through rarely enough to actually look at the platforms or know what's happening there.

In particular, a limit of 9 cars on a train seems awful low for a major terminal station. If true, that would probably be the lowest limit for any of the "main" stations in the East (out West things are a bit more complicated, but I think almost all the stations can handle 9-10 car trains even if Amtrak doesn't usually send more than 8 passenger cars their way).

 

[StriderGDM]

Someone above suggested another NYP-CHI train 6 hours after the LSL.

What I've suggested elsewhere is that the LSL be changed to be strictly BOS-CHI and a separate train (call it the 21st Century Limited if you want) from NYP to CHI.

This is one of the few routes I think could benefit from a 2nd overnight train as in my experience it's fairly packed and often used by actual business travelers.

(in an ideal world I'd route one of these trains through Canada and Detroit/Ann Arbor, but that's probably far more trouble than it's worth.)

I do think extending the Star to Boston may make some sense, but only if you do it through Springfield.

 

[Anderson]

Someone above suggested another NYP-CHI train 6 hours after the LSL.

What I've suggested elsewhere is that the LSL be changed to be strictly BOS-CHI and a separate train (call it the 21st Century Limited if you want) from NYP to CHI.

This is one of the few routes I think could benefit from a 2nd overnight train as in my experience it's fairly packed and often used by actual business travelers.

(in an ideal world I'd route one of these trains through Canada and Detroit/Ann Arbor, but that's probably far more trouble than it's worth.)

I do think extending the Star to Boston may make some sense, but only if you do it through Springfield.

The LSL situation has come up before; as long as you have a connecting Empire train (or run a section to NYP over the ALB-NYP line) each way that should be workable (NYP being the main transfer point with a bunch of other trains as well as a major source of traffic in its own right). I do agree that a second train (probably later WB but earlier EB; something that offers a legal connection with the Adirondack would probably generate a surprising amount of connecting business) would be a good thing; the main question is how to best serve NYP (for traffic and revenue) as well as other destinations like BOS (for coverage).

 

[VentureForth]

I think a 2nd Lakeshore is a great idea. You would reduce the inconvenience of missed connections by 12 hours, and it's probably one of the most traveled long distance route.

Without going back and researching, some of the most premium, fasted diesel rides occurred along this route. CHI - NYP is a huge market. Double the capacity, reduce the fares by 10% and they will come.

Equipment, Host RR, and everything else notwithstanding, of course.

But my vote was to extend the Silver Meteor up to BOS. I still want to go to BOS, but want to do it with points. With points, I only get 3/4 of the trip in a sleeper - a bit of a waste.

 

[Triley]

But my vote was to extend the Silver Meteor up to BOS. I still want to go to BOS, but want to do it with points. With points, I only get 3/4 of the trip in a sleeper - a bit of a waste.

NYP to BOS is hardly a quarter of your trip (roughly 4 hours out of 20), but point taken. Would be interesting to argue for letting one use 49 to connect to 448 and see what they have to say.

 

[jis]

Southampton Street would go into a catatonic fit with the mere mention of the possibility of having to service an entire LD train. As it is they were not please with the need to service one measly little Viewliner on 448/449! Such are the ways of Amtrak.Apparently they will get to service another Viewliner on 66/67 anyway whether they like it or not.

I think in general Amtrak should allow Sleeper passenger to use Acela BC to connect to anywhere on the NEC for a conjunction fare rather than the full Acela fare tacked on. The numbers are not large enough to cause a blip in finances and the goodwill generated would be very significant.

 

[VentureForth]

But my vote was to extend the Silver Meteor up to BOS. I still want to go to BOS, but want to do it with points. With points, I only get 3/4 of the trip in a sleeper - a bit of a waste.

NYP to BOS is hardly a quarter of your trip (roughly 4 hours out of 20), but point taken. Would be interesting to argue for letting one use 49 to connect to 448 and see what they have to say.

It's actually 2/9ths of the trip which is smack between 1/4 and 1/5. And don't forget about the 2-3 hour layover in NYP where I don't get to be in my sleeper. Running the train all they way up to BOS could take hours out of the trip AND keep it a one seat (or bed) journey.

But alas, I ain't countin' on that. I still want to see the Crescent Star come to fruition.

 

[Palmetto]

Southampton Street would go into a catatonic fit with the mere mention of the possibility of having to service an entire LD train. As it is they were not please with the need to service one measly little Viewliner on 448/449! Such are the ways of Amtrak.Apparently they will get to service another Viewliner on 66/67 anyway whether they like it or not.

I think in general Amtrak should allow Sleeper passenger to use Acela BC to connect to anywhere on the NEC for a conjunction fare rather than the full Acela fare tacked on. The numbers are not not large enough to cause a blip in finances and the goodwill generated would be very significant.

Yes, because the only options seem to now be regular Business Class on a regional, or First Class on Acela. You're idea is a good one.

 

[railiner]

I commend the OP for his imagination....his only problem is that he was born too late....

As mentioned, the B&O Capitol did briefly run thru to Penn Station, NY, and then went back to the CRRNJ Terminal in Jersey City (not Hoboken), where passenger's used either ferries or B&O buses to various parts of NYC.

And in the post war years, one could travel thru the traditional rail gateways on thru Pullman sleepers from coast to coast. Even in the early Amtrak years, there were thru sleepers on two different routes (STL-KCY or NOL) between New York and Los Angeles. And IIRC, Amtrak briefly ran thru San Diego to Seattle or perhaps Vancouver service.

I believe they may have also briefly ran Montreal or Boston to Florida sleepers, as well.

And then there were those Turboliners that ran from Milwaukee to St. Lous or Detroit...

So it is not something that has never been done before, but in practice it is better to terminate trains at major hubs, and provide connections, for many of the reason's other's have posted....

 

[Triley]

Southampton Street would go into a catatonic fit with the mere mention of the possibility of having to service an entire LD train. As it is they were not please with the need to service one measly little Viewliner on 448/449! Such are the ways of Amtrak.Apparently they will get to service another Viewliner on 66/67 anyway whether they like it or not.

I think in general Amtrak should allow Sleeper passenger to use Acela BC to connect to anywhere on the NEC for a conjunction fare rather than the full Acela fare tacked on. The numbers are not not large enough to cause a blip in finances and the goodwill generated would be very significant.

Yes, because the only options seem to now be regular Business Class on a regional, or First Class on Acela. You're idea is a good one.

Southampton Street would go into a catatonic fit with the mere mention of the possibility of having to service an entire LD train. As it is they were not please with the need to service one measly little Viewliner on 448/449! Such are the ways of Amtrak.Apparently they will get to service another Viewliner on 66/67 anyway whether they like it or not.

I think in general Amtrak should allow Sleeper passenger to use Acela BC to connect to anywhere on the NEC for a conjunction fare rather than the full Acela fare tacked on. The numbers are not not large enough to cause a blip in finances and the goodwill generated would be very significant.

Yes, because the only options seem to now be regular Business Class on a regional, or First Class on Acela. You're idea is a good one.

What he means is you pay whatever the fare is from your origin to your connection point and then you pay whatever the full fare is from your connection point to your final destination, for Acelas. You can ride in a sleeper and then in business class on an Acela if you'd like. Just need to use the arrow to change from First Class to Business (or in the case of a Regional, from Business to coach), just like you would do to change between a roomette or bedroom.

Southampton Street would go into a catatonic fit with the mere mention of the possibility of having to service an entire LD train. As it is they were not please with the need to service one measly little Viewliner on 448/449! Such are the ways of Amtrak.Apparently they will get to service another Viewliner on 66/67 anyway whether they like it or not.

I think in general Amtrak should allow Sleeper passenger to use Acela BC to connect to anywhere on the NEC for a conjunction fare rather than the full Acela fare tacked on. The numbers are not large enough to cause a blip in finances and the goodwill generated would be very significant.

I'm not sure how likely 65/66/67 is to get a sleeper back any time soon, given the comments I've received. Not saying it's not going to happen, but people around Boston seem to think it's unlikely. But then again, one never knows with Amtrak!

And just as an afterthought, I don't even know if we'd be able to fit a fullsize LSL in the yard. And you're right, maintenance would have a blast. There's only two cleaning bays for Acelas, and two for Amfleets, and 95% of the time when I walk by the maintenance building, both cleaning bays for the Amfleets are in use. Pull one train out, and another takes its place minutes later.

 

[Hal]

And just as an afterthought, I don't even know if we'd be able to fit a fullsize LSL in the yard. And you're right, maintenance would have a blast. There's only two cleaning bays for Acelas, and two for Amfleets, and 95% of the time when I walk by the maintenance building, both cleaning bays for the Amfleets are in use. Pull one train out, and another takes its place minutes later.

Bingo. Fantasies can make for interesting discussions but the logistics of doing of the fantasy routings stand in the way of their happening.

 

[Anderson]

I've often found that the greatest utility of fantasy discussions is in finding out practical flaws in the ideas. For example, until this discussion I was not aware of how constrained the station and maintenance facilities in Boston were. Numerous other discussions have revealed other things that I did not know, sometimes because someone put out an idea that was utterly unworkable. Even if I knew it was unworkable for some reason, I didn't know why, and from my perspective the why is vitally important. I'm thinking back many years to when Kevin Page and I spent a few hours talking over things that were/weren't workable, had been looked at and rejected (and him patiently explaining why) by Virginia. The value of discussing those "why" questions did a lot to help me figure out other logistics stuff.

 

[Heading North]

I agree with Anderson on the importance of getting the "why" though disappointing it may be.

This thread reminded me of an idea I had years ago (when the Three Rivers still ran, so dating myself!). If the LSL arrived at NYP outside of rush hours (assuming track availability), it could avoid the trip to Sunnyside, lay over at Penn, and depart as a NYP-PHL-CHI train with just an engine change, since the NYP-PHL segment involves backwards running anyway. (Running out of NYP southbound to other destinations would require a trip to Sunnyside to be positioned.) Poor OTP probably precludes this, but a minimal turn in NYP (with no literal turn required) and a longer layover in CHI could be a more efficient utilization of equipment and the round-trip (whether clockwise or counter) wouldn't be much longer than some of the western LDs one-way.

 

[Anderson]

I agree with Anderson on the importance of getting the "why" though disappointing it may be.

This thread reminded me of an idea I had years ago (when the Three Rivers still ran, so dating myself!). If the LSL arrived at NYP outside of rush hours (assuming track availability), it could avoid the trip to Sunnyside, lay over at Penn, and depart as a NYP-PHL-CHI train with just an engine change, since the NYP-PHL segment involves backwards running anyway. (Running out of NYP southbound to other destinations would require a trip to Sunnyside to be positioned.) Poor OTP probably precludes this, but a minimal turn in NYP (with no literal turn required) and a longer layover in CHI could be a more efficient utilization of equipment and the round-trip (whether clockwise or counter) wouldn't be much longer than some of the western LDs one-way.

This is one of the better ideas that I've heard as far as equipment utilization. As you noted, OTP is a major culprit for making this unworkable. There are, IMHO, two other issues:

(1) You need to handle a reverse-running train (e.g. if one set goes CHI-NYP-PHL-CHI, another needs to go CHI-PHL-NYP-CHI), and from what I recall attempting to do so would have been a mess.

(2) I'm not sure what would be needed in terms of restocking the diner and the laundry in the sleepers...not to mention that these trains would be making almost exclusive use of the infamous Chicago yards.

With that said, something like this would open up a slew of otherwise impossible one-seat rides (e.g. ALB-PGH, BUF-PHL).

 

[Anderson]

Alright, I've been thinking about how to handle this with all of the aforementioned restrictions. Assuming you could more or less force the Boston yard folks to go along with a sleeper train of some sort, here's what I'm thinking:
-Run a combined Boston section for the Meteor (97/98) and the Crescent (19/20). The train will show up in the timetable as two trains (497/498 and 419/420) but with the same times each way.
-The Boston train will be as follows:
4971 Bag-dorm
4972 Sleeper
4978 Coach
4979 Coach
---- Cafe
4199 Coach
4198 Coach
4192 Sleeper
4191 Bag-Dorm

-The train will be split at Washington (the cafe can be removed, de-staffed and sent through on one of the trains, or retained as an extra food service car with the "main" train only having a diner WAS-NYP) and attached to the relevant LD trains. It will be timed to connect with the Crescent, with the Meteor passengers getting an hour in Washington (the lower tracks are not /that/ busy after about 1800).
-The train will not sell local tickets NYP-WAS southbound or WAS-STM northbound. Tickets from north of NHV to NYP-WAS destinations will be sold, as will tickets to/from locations south of WAS. Through tickets (e.g. BOS-MIA) will also be sold. Tickets within BOS-WAS will be space-restricted (moreso between stations that are both on the NEC than, say, stations on the BBY-SPG line to places on the NEC).

This is about the best I can do. You have a kludge of a train insofar as merging sections from two trains, but given the alternatives (running separate 4-6 car sections to Boston, for example) and an estimated nine-car limit this is probably the best you can do. The train is sleeper-heavy, yes, but I think that is a feature and not a bug. The bag-dorms are there to allow checked baggage on both trains; it might be possible to switch one to a sleeper if you're willing to force a baggage transfer in Washington. On the one hand there will be displeased employees; on the other hand, it shouldn't be that much baggage and it isn't like either train is at a risk of missing the connection.

 

[jis]

You will need some investment at Southampton St. To find a service/ storage track apparently from what the Amtrak insiders have mentioned in this thread.

My fearless prediction is that this will not happen in my lifetime.

 

[Thirdrail7]

Anderson:

A lot of the things you mention don't seem to add up. First of all, the lower level of WTC is quite busy after 600pm, especially if there are late trains in the picture. I can't see them allowing a consist to sit there waiting for inbound connection. Additionally, with the consist you created, there may be limitations that will hinder switching especially if you leave a consist that is waiting for a connection on one of the 6 passenger accessible tracks. You'd can only fit four cars and an electric within the tunnels south of DC without running out of wire. Are you creating a double drill? If you are, you're creating tunnel congestion while you hold one of two tracks to perform all of your switching while leaving one for your through movements. If not, you're going to have to switching from the north end which will interfere with upper level operations which are still in full swing at the times you are proposing. Furthermore, now you have to keep 97's connection on power and air plant, but that is easy enough. It is the real estate that is valuable at this time.

I don't see WTC supporting such a move.

Additionally, the northern operation is undefined. One of the first things I mentioned in this thread involved a lack of slots in Boston's S&I (which for the record is the source of the hard 9 car winter limit.) Let's assume they are able to overcome the lack of slot issue.

How are you balancing equipment? In other words, what is your plan for the northern version of this train you've created? What happens when 98 arrives in WTC in the morning? If it manages to arrive on time, is it hogging valuable real estate in the lower level of WTC during rush hour to wait for 20? What happens if 20 arrives before 98? Does the BOS section of 20 wait for 98's inbound connection? If they are hours apart, do we now have to run them separately, which requires more crews and engines?

This is important since Acela runs were cancelled to meet the Shore Line bridge requirements during the week.

This operation sounds problematic during mild weather on the longest day of the year. I can see real issues in the dead of winter. :help:

 

[Thirdrail7]

I agree with Anderson on the importance of getting the "why" though disappointing it may be.

This thread reminded me of an idea I had years ago (when the Three Rivers still ran, so dating myself!). If the LSL arrived at NYP outside of rush hours (assuming track availability), it could avoid the trip to Sunnyside, lay over at Penn, and depart as a NYP-PHL-CHI train with just an engine change, since the NYP-PHL segment involves backwards running anyway. (Running out of NYP southbound to other destinations would require a trip to Sunnyside to be positioned.) Poor OTP probably precludes this, but a minimal turn in NYP (with no literal turn required) and a longer layover in CHI could be a more efficient utilization of equipment and the round-trip (whether clockwise or counter) wouldn't be much longer than some of the western LDs one-way.

This is one of the better ideas that I've heard as far as equipment utilization. As you noted, OTP is a major culprit for making this unworkable. There are, IMHO, two other issues:

(1) You need to handle a reverse-running train (e.g. if one set goes CHI-NYP-PHL-CHI, another needs to go CHI-PHL-NYP-CHI), and from what I recall attempting to do so would have been a mess.

(2) I'm not sure what would be needed in terms of restocking the diner and the laundry in the sleepers...not to mention that these trains would be making almost exclusive use of the infamous Chicago yards.

With that said, something like this would open up a slew of otherwise impossible one-seat rides (e.g. ALB-PGH, BUF-PHL).

Sounds good on paper but I have one question. Assuming you clean the train between runs while on the platform, how are you performing the FRA mandated calendar day inspections which are required every calendar day or 1500 miles, whichever occurs first? Remember, if a train is delayed en route, it may continue to where its inspection is scheduled to be performed.

The NYP-CHI-PHL-CHI scenario created above schedules a train past a calendar day necessitating an inspection. NYP has platforms on one side and on occasion, third rail on BOTH sides of the tracks. It is also one of the busiest stations/terminals in the system. Such an environment is hardly conducive to routinely performing calendar day inspections.

Years ago, 10 track in NYP didn't have third rail so trains could be watered and serviced in the station without de-energizing large swaths of third rails sections. That ship sailed a long time ago, so while this may seem like a great idea, it is hogging valuable real estate in a busy terminal with no good way to expedite servicing.