I'm as big a proponent of rail as anyone, I think, but with the caveat that it needs to be practical. I just don't believe Pittsburgh has the population density in suburban areas to justify the heavy investment that heavy commuter rail requires. Add to that, the pandemic has sapped downtown with many companies still doing mostly remote work. Even the long dreamed of prospect of light rail to Pittsburgh Airport isn't likely to ever happen. The airport bus service from downtown to PIT, subsidized by the Airport Authority, is poorly patronized.
Pennsylvanian (the train(s) and route) discussion
- Thread starter jis
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Indeed, that has been part of the problem too, and extended to longer distance that is a problem with the entire Capitol Limited route through PA west of Cumberland, until it gets to Pittsburgh. Population is relatively sparse and diffused. That is why the Cap has been a relatively poor performer,. Too little enroute traffic when compared to the ex-Pennsy route. It was a serious mistake to cancel the Broadway and keep the Capitol, and it was a considered decision based on nothing by the then Ammanagement.
Septa9739
Lead Service Attendant
I think the Commonwealth should push for a slowed down overnight train PGH-NYP (with what mystical equipment I know not) Depart PGH 22:00, arrive PHL 7:00, arrive NYP 9:00, Depart NYP 21:00, Depart PHL 23:00, Arrive PGH 8:30. The run is just short enough that a little slowdown would make it ideal for a no diner overnight. Demand would be strong and it would make that $200,000,000 more palatable. In theory a slower schedule would be easier on NS. But at some point, the Commonwealth needs to dig in it’s heels and say: “We’ve sunk millions and millions into rebuilding your railroad because you’re too cheap and/or incompetent to do it. 5 round trips or no more subsidies.”PennDOT acts like they don’t have leverage, but they do and it’s frustrating how little they use it.
Like your suggestion, but I would like it to continue on as a daytime train between Pittsburgh and Chicago. Since it would not be scheduled to receive western connections, it should be fairly reliable...
It would then require at least a 'dinette'...
Septa9739
Lead Service Attendant
I think that’s a good idea. My only concern would be timekeeping. I’d also really like through cars to the Capitol (even though within a few years the Capitol would end up being the stub train.)
Anecdotally I haven't noticed that, but apparently you're right: according to one source (pre-COVID), the 28X still has quite a respectable ridership but may have lost ground to rideshare. "'[A] dip in ridership has been noticed on the 28X, the bus that runs from university areas in Oakland to the Pittsburgh International Airport. In 2013, before Uber and Lyft became commonplace, the 28X averaged 58,786 rides per month. By 2017, WESA reported that the 28X’s monthly ridership had fallen to just above 50,000, making it the bus line that has been most impacted by rideshare services."
I say "may have" because there are so many variables here. Passenger traffic at PIT has been struggling ever since USAir jilted the city (and its fancy new airport) soon after September 11. The 28X also carries workers and customers to a sprawling collection of ugly big-box stores at so-called Robinson Town Centre (a detour that aggravates airport-bound riders) so its fate is indirectly tied to the retail sector.
That said, it has great service to downtown and the University area for really, really cheap and I consider it one of Pittsburgh's bargains. I also see a lot of university students on the Cap Limited. Health care and universities ("eds and meds") are now the leading industries in the City of Steel.
http://thetartan.org/2019/2/18/news/port-authority
Absolutely agree! If they ran thru cars from the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol, and timed them to meet together, the New York train would be the "thru train", and the Washington section would be the "stub".
Exactly! As much as I love the historic route of the Capitol, the original route to Chicago by Amtrak via Harrisburg with a Washington connection on the Port Road, or even through Philly, was the correct decision. A Thuway connection to Altoona (1hr10min) for the dozens? of Cumberland passengers would take care of westbound customers (and the politicians).
Septa9739
Lead Service Attendant
I wouldn’t use the Port Road. I would (depending on projected volume) spilt at HAR into an NYP section via the Subway and a PHL-WAS section or split at PHL. For what it’s worth I think a lot of the traffic at PGH and WAS on the Capitol is for connections, but there’s not insignificant traffic PGH to WAS, so maybe just spilt at PGH and run a Capitol section and a Broadway section.
When I rode the Broadway back in 1985 that is how they did it. One huge train coming out of Chicago that split in Pittsburgh. At the time they were still running a heritage dome on the Capitol so got to ride that across Indiana
Amtrak's stillborn Skyline Connection from the late 1990s was to operate largely at the convenience of M&E traffic, but was to be an overnight train from Philadelphia (with connection to/from NYP) and Pittsburgh through to Chicago. With the Viewliner II order completely delivered (e.g. Viewliner Sleepers and Viewliner Diners at least) - convert the Capitol Limited to single level and have the train split/divide at Pittsburgh with a NYC section and Washington DC section. Would make more efficient use of equipment and carry greater ridership. There's also no reason why Amtrak couldn't explore more overnight routes that have say three Viewliner sleepers and two coaches (weight more towards sleepers with the Viewliner II sleeper order complete). Departure between 5 pm and 10 pm with arrival by 6 am and 10 am.
Referring back to the 1960's, that would be the PRR eastbound Manhattan Limited and the westbound Pennsylvania Limited. Of course, there were lots of western connections right in Chicago Union Station for those trains.
Right on. I can only dream about recreating timetables of the 1960's...especially early '60's. About the only exceptions to that might be between Los Angeles and San Diego...
Last edited:
I mean, I don't see a problem with effectively giving them another $50-100m for another frequency since you're essentially "buying" a slot for a train that doesn't behave like a freight train (it runs faster and makes multiple intermediate stops, so it basically takes slots from a few freight trains - even if the capacity isn't needed now, it still represents a loss to potential future operations).
[I concur with the suggestions on here that an overnight train on this run would make sense for that third train. You don't even need to slow it down that much...a extra 30-60 minutes should keep HAR and PGH out of the 0000-0600 "trouble spot". In ideal circumstances, that could be extended further west to Cleveland, Detroit, Chicago, or somewhere else.]
I'll edit to add: If you're willing to sacrifice HAR (a debatable decision, to be sure, but potentially still workable), you could fiddle with the schedule to get a quasi-commuter timing into PGH (arriving around 0800-0830). Trying to execute on a reversed schedule (leaving around 1700 or so) would also work if you're willing to sandbag NYP - the main question would be if you could squeeze just enough time out of the timetable to get into PHL by 0000 (though that's one case where I might just say "screw it" and rip all of the padding out on the way into PHL so I can timetable that...0000 is one of those times I don't think OTP is super-important.
I agree with you on the issues with downtown jobs being hit on a permanent basis. That being said, commuter rail can be (relatively) inexpensive by comparison, particularly with a pliable host railroad and particularly vs light rail and so on.
So, I'm not convinced of this because of the nature of the Capitol Limited. The Pennsylvanian (on its current timetable) misses the SB Silver Star. It has less than an hour for the connection to the SB Crescent. NB, it misses both as well. The Meteor is a good connection with it on the present timetable (though that could plausibly be rendered spotty at PHL if timekeeping became "touchy"). Simply put, the Cap's main role is in providing Midwest-to-Southeast connections (IIRC CHI-WAS is like 40% of the Cap's ridership, and another 20% is CHI-PGH or PGH-WAS), and unless you can replace that on a daily basis it'll remain as-is.
Last edited:
Septa9739
Lead Service Attendant
Per RPA 2019 stats, it’s 27.5% CHI-WAS, less than 16.9% CHI-PGH (guessing about 13-14% because CLE doesn’t see much traffic and WAS to CLE is the only other major pairing in the 400-500 mile range), less than 14.5% PGH to WAS (guessing around 9% because CHI-TOL is also relatively busy. Roughly 55,000-60,000 travel CHI to WAS every year, and close to 30,000 CHI to PGH. By comparison, Only about 30,000-35,000 travel NYP to CHI on the LSL every year. This all supports your conclusion that the Capitol supports loads of connections. It’s the only way to make sense of those numbers, but I think the majority of those connections are eastbound for BAL, PHL, and even NYP because the LSL is so expensive and the eastbound schedule is less than ideal. The LSL also offers junky connections with no baggage service to PHL and BAL suggesting that the vast majority of people wouldn’t connect to it. While the Cap may have been intended for Midwest to Southeast connections, that was when the Broadway still ran and I don’t think that intention represents the real utilization of the service today.
That’s not to suggest that the Midwest to Southeast connections don’t exist. I know they do and I’ve seen them utilized, but I think that economic and scheduling factors generate a lot of traffic at WAS that goes against geographical sense and would be better served over the ex-PRR. I think cut cars would cut out a lot of those connections, but more importantly generate significant new traffic from Pennsylvania to Chicago, demand for which is wildly underestimated. Those cut cars would cement the Pennsylvanian route as part of national network and hopefully cut down on those obnoxious sellouts between PGH and CHI because the present route is badly balanced. I think it’s perfectly reasonable to say in a hypothetical 5 coach, 3 sleeper, future that within 5 years 3 and 2 would head over the ex-PRR, while 2 and 1 head over the ex-B&O. This could even facilitate sending the dinner to NYP, possibly allowing simplification of the WAS commissary, which Amtrak would look at given the chance. It isn’t necessary to replace those route miles, if a new route reduces demand on another.
cirdan
Engineer
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2011
- Messages
- 3,659
I think if you resist the temptation to gold plate and have a friendly host railroad, commuter rail can be just about the lowest cost form of rail transportation you can do, as long as you are running on existing tracks and can somehow juggle things to work within the constraints of what is already there so you don't need to add much new stuff.
But of course you still need the potential ridership and a ROW running through no man's land is obviously never going to attract ridership.
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Greensburg and Latrobe to get some much needed belated TLC and improvement
https://triblive.com/local/westmore...-improvements-at-greensburg-latrobe-stations/
https://triblive.com/local/westmore...-improvements-at-greensburg-latrobe-stations/
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
Work started on the upgrade of Coatesville Station including bringing it to full ADA compliance.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...for-new-amtrak-septa-station-in-pennsylvania/
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-rev...for-new-amtrak-septa-station-in-pennsylvania/
Late to the discussion, but Article 84 of the Swiss Constitution provides part of the answer. Most freight going to/from Italy which doesn't stop in Switzerland has to go by rail.
One thing I'd note - if you were to run a stub train WAS-PGH, you could probably shift the run by a few hours and avoid some of the more noxious timing issues. Moving the WAS departure back to 1400 (from 1600) would get folks into PGH by around 2200, and if you can accept a 1500-1530 arrival in WAS, the PGH departure time can be a lot more comfortable.
[There's also the option to "flip" the train and time it as a reverse-peak frequency along the Martinsburg Line (and add a few stops) - a morning departure from WAS and a midday departure from PGH would be an option, as would morning or midday in both directions...I think as long as you preserve a connection to 97/98, and with it presumably to a few NEC trains as well, you're probably on alright turf; if you can keep 19/20 then all the better, but 20's timetable got garfed up by NS so that might be a little bit trickier.]
Edit to add: As an observation, the MARC trains take about two hours Martinsburg-Washington. The Capitol Limited is timetabled at 1:40 WB (it's at about 2:05 EB, but obvious padding is obvious). If you traded 15 minutes off to add about half of the stops, that would probably be a fair trade for a re-focused stub train.
[There's also the option to "flip" the train and time it as a reverse-peak frequency along the Martinsburg Line (and add a few stops) - a morning departure from WAS and a midday departure from PGH would be an option, as would morning or midday in both directions...I think as long as you preserve a connection to 97/98, and with it presumably to a few NEC trains as well, you're probably on alright turf; if you can keep 19/20 then all the better, but 20's timetable got garfed up by NS so that might be a little bit trickier.]
Edit to add: As an observation, the MARC trains take about two hours Martinsburg-Washington. The Capitol Limited is timetabled at 1:40 WB (it's at about 2:05 EB, but obvious padding is obvious). If you traded 15 minutes off to add about half of the stops, that would probably be a fair trade for a re-focused stub train.
Last edited:
jis
Permanent Way Inspector
Staff member
Administator
Moderator
AU Supporting Member
Gathering Team Member
The second train making a bit of progress...
https://www.penncapital-star.com/tr...ent-on-expanded-amtrak-service-to-pittsburgh/
https://www.penncapital-star.com/tr...ent-on-expanded-amtrak-service-to-pittsburgh/
Alexandria Nick
Lead Service Attendant
That's the rub: the commuting patterns in the Pittsburgh region don't really fit the existing tracks. Employment is broadly distributed, with downtown only accounting for a small portion of the workforce. Aside from the 28 corridor up the Allegheny, the main commuter trunks don't match up with existing tracks for the portion of the region that actually goes downtown for work. There's no duplicate for the traffic down 279.
