PHL-CHI Route Options

[Anderson]

I'm wondering...

Amtrak is billing New York $X/yr for the NYP-BUF service. What would the reaction be, presuming equipment availability, if Amtrak were to take one train (I'm thinking 280) and approach New York with an offer: Make it daily and run it to Chicago, possibly on a modestly altered schedule within NYS, for the same amount of subsidy? I know there are CSX issues to consider, but if the direct losses on the LSL are as small as they're indicated to be (and quite frankly, I would not be surprised if those losses are all on the Boston section...two coaches and a sleeper does not equal a profitable train) it's possible that taking the existing losses allocated to 280 would leave Amtrak well "in the black" on said train (e.g. if NY's operating contribution plus "other stuff" came to $5m and the direct losses for the full NYP-CHI run came to $2m, Amtrak would seem to be coming out ahead on the train).

(I'm assuming 280 would have a slightly outsized share of the losses...simply on account of running out of BUF so early likely leaving a good spot of space empty onboard)

 

[jis]

I was hinting why NJT does not do NYP to PHL.

Oh, that's because Pennsylvania will have none of it. Afterall it is SEPTA franchise territory. It was like pulling teeth with Pennsylvania even to get NJT service to ACY to be brought into PHL.

And after PA agrees, NJ legislature will have none of it unless someone subsidizes the losses in PA and pays for the use of NJT equipment for providing service in PA. They are not willing to pick up the operating costs in PA on the backs of NJ tax payers.

And then PA would rather that SEPTA ran the service, which they sort of do. Ergo we have what we have.

Then there is the purely operational issue that there is also a huge demand imbalance between the two sides of Trenton. NJT can basically fill a Trenton terminating train of 10 cars throughout the day. SEPTA can barely fill a three car train. So running an NJT through train would mean that 7 cars would be just running up and down empty all the time. Actually NJT trains are pretty much down to three cars worth of passengers by the time they get past Princeton and Hamilton too, except during rush hours. But Trenton remains a convenient turning point. NJT is investing in additional infrastructure of the Midline Loop to enable use of North Brunswick as a short turning point throughout the day, recognizing that there is a significant increase in ridership north/east of New Brunswick.

 

[neroden]

The route that the NYC has a lot of population centers west of HAR to PGH there are smaller cities that I don't believe are the same size. But I could be wrong. Someone correct me on that if I am.

On the existing route there's really not much from HAR to PGH; the biggest is Altoona. State College is *temptingly nearby*, and there's a nearly-straight train line running west from it which connects into the existing route. I really want Pennsylvania to spend a billion dollars (or whatever) punching a tunnel from Lewiston (on the east side of State College) through to State College, extending Keystones there and rerouting the Pennsylvanian there. State College has a larger metro area population than Altoona, and *college students*, which means it will punch massively above its weight for number of riders. It would make future Western Pennsylvania improvements much more likely.
But Pennsylvania should have other priorities:

-- Getting SEPTA into a state of good repair. SEPTA has the most decrepit stations on the NEC, for instance, some of which lack platforms.

-- Allentown/Bethelehem needs service to both Philadelphia and New York.

-- Scranton/Wilkes-Barre needs service to New York at least, and preferably to Philadelphia too.

-- Erie has more than twice the population of Altoona or State College, and a second (daytime stopping) frequency on the LSL route would be of great value there.

 

[neroden]

I'm wondering...

Amtrak is billing New York $X/yr for the NYP-BUF service. What would the reaction be, presuming equipment availability, if Amtrak were to take one train (I'm thinking 280) and approach New York with an offer: Make it daily and run it to Chicago, possibly on a modestly altered schedule within NYS, for the same amount of subsidy? I know there are CSX issues to consider,

Three more issues, beyond the two you identified1) On Time Performance. There would be too much fear of train delays cascading from the west end. Basically, you need to do South of the Lake first, which eliminates most of the sources of delay on that end.

(2) This would withdraw one daily service from Niagara Falls. Not sure whether that would be acceptable but I think it depends on scheduling of the remaining three.

(3) NS agreement. NS is pretty friendly and has removed most of the other bottlenecks on the route, so I suspect this would come down to "build South of the Lake!"

but if the direct losses on the LSL are as small as they're indicated to be (and quite frankly, I would not be surprised if those losses are all on the Boston section...two coaches and a sleeper does not equal a profitable train)

That's a definite possibility. BOS-ALB is just too damn slow, though it's still faster than detouring via NYP. I'd say that it should be operated as a separate corridor train but it would require state support and I don't think Massachusetts would come up with the money. Maybe if Massachusetts can speed up Springfield-Worcester-Boston, which they have shown some interest in doing...
Worth noting, the estimates which Paulus and I hashed out between us indicate that sleepers are more profitable than coaches on the LSL. And only on the LSL, not on the other trains. So the Boston sleeper is probably a good bet, but I'm not so sure about the Boston coaches...

it's possible that taking the existing losses allocated to 280 would leave Amtrak well "in the black" on said train (e.g. if NY's operating contribution plus "other stuff" came to $5m and the direct losses for the full NYP-CHI run came to $2m, Amtrak would seem to be coming out ahead on the train).

(I'm assuming 280 would have a slightly outsized share of the losses...simply on account of running out of BUF so early likely leaving a good spot of space empty onboard)

I think we're back to the vital importance of South of the Lake.

 

[Anderson]

I'll agree across the board on South of the Lake (again, my main way of looking at such is to try and drive for as many slots as possible for future use as you can get, and worry about deals to swap slots or do other deals later). As to Niagara, given the hour and what I suspect the traffic load looks like it would probably make sense to run a bus into Buffalo. Not pretty, I'll grant, but probably the best you can do.

Edit: Figured I'd dredge this report out:

http://www.midwesthsr.org/sites/default/files/images/Lakeshore_corridor_study.2.pdf

Two things of interest:
(1) There's a lot of overhead that gets allocated onto a route extension. I'm not sure how the expenses for station expenses, security, etc. get allocated there. G&A should have almost no impact (this is adding 3x daily round trips in a system that runs about 300 trains per day...not something to be ignored, but 60 Mass isn't going to suddenly need 50 new staff...I'm simply not seeing how roughly $20m in G&A appears), while I can't see the added station costs being that high (yes, you'd need to staff most stations 24/7 as a result, but see below for a list of stations and hours added...it does not add up to tripling costs). Security probably doesn't scale that much, either.

(2) One train each way has a lousy endpoint time (though the 0120 arrival into NYP at least connects with 66/67), but I can definitely imagine using these schedules in various ways to add a section on one or two trains to Detroit, Cincinnati, etc. to help out the relative weakness of the train(s) in question while getting those cities service.

Stations and changes in hours:

-NYP: Presently 24 hours
-POU: Presently 0500-2100; add 8 hours (+50% to staffing?)

-ALB: Presently 0500-0215; add 2:45...perhaps +15% to staffing (and probably far less to facilities expenses)

-SYR: Presently 24 hours

-ROC: Presently 0500-0100; add 4 hours...perhaps +20-25% to staffing?
-BUF: Presently 24 hours

-CLE: Presently 2300-0930; this is the only station where 24-hour operation would likely more than double staffing expenses.
-TOL: Presently 2230-1330; add 10 hours...maybe +80-100% to staffing?

-CHI: Presently 0530-0000; add 5 hours...but the added staffing costs should be negligible in the context of the station size.

My best guess is that you'd add relatively little to station expenses: The buildings won't take much more in terms of operating costs and upkeep (if you use the same space, a station that sees one train per day probably costs only a little less than if it saw one train per hour). Staffing is trickier (at some stations you might consciously decide to not have a station be staffed for one or two "obscene hour" departures, or even have one of the trains skip a stop if ridership "reallocates itself"), but staffing a lone ticket desk at NYP for a few extra hours wouldn't be exceedingly expensive (or you could just tell the conductors to manually check anyone in who can't print off a ticket and check their IDs) and everyone else has to be there anyway for 66/67. So overall you're probably looking at about +10-15% to staffing costs, perhaps up to +25% if you decide you absolutely have to staff all stations around-the-clock, allow checked luggage on all trains, and add some additional agents at busier stops.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm wondering...

Amtrak is billing New York $X/yr for the NYP-BUF service. What would the reaction be, presuming equipment availability, if Amtrak were to take one train (I'm thinking 280) and approach New York with an offer: Make it daily and run it to Chicago, possibly on a modestly altered schedule within NYS, for the same amount of subsidy? I know there are CSX issues to consider,

Three more issues, beyond the two you identified1) On Time Performance. There would be too much fear of train delays cascading from the west end. Basically, you need to do South of the Lake first, which eliminates most of the sources of delay on that end.

(2) This would withdraw one daily service from Niagara Falls. Not sure whether that would be acceptable but I think it depends on scheduling of the remaining three.

(3) NS agreement. NS is pretty friendly and has removed most of the other bottlenecks on the route, so I suspect this would come down to "build South of the Lake!"

but if the direct losses on the LSL are as small as they're indicated to be (and quite frankly, I would not be surprised if those losses are all on the Boston section...two coaches and a sleeper does not equal a profitable train)

That's a definite possibility. BOS-ALB is just too damn slow, though it's still faster than detouring via NYP. I'd say that it should be operated as a separate corridor train but it would require state support and I don't think Massachusetts would come up with the money. Maybe if Massachusetts can speed up Springfield-Worcester-Boston, which they have shown some interest in doing...
Worth noting, the estimates which Paulus and I hashed out between us indicate that sleepers are more profitable than coaches on the LSL. And only on the LSL, not on the other trains. So the Boston sleeper is probably a good bet, but I'm not so sure about the Boston coaches...

it's possible that taking the existing losses allocated to 280 would leave Amtrak well "in the black" on said train (e.g. if NY's operating contribution plus "other stuff" came to $5m and the direct losses for the full NYP-CHI run came to $2m, Amtrak would seem to be coming out ahead on the train).

(I'm assuming 280 would have a slightly outsized share of the losses...simply on account of running out of BUF so early likely leaving a good spot of space empty onboard)

I think we're back to the vital importance of South of the Lake.

I'm not as familiar with the terminology. "South of the Lake"? Is that between BUF and ALB?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The route that the NYC has a lot of population centers west of HAR to PGH there are smaller cities that I don't believe are the same size. But I could be wrong. Someone correct me on that if I am.

On the existing route there's really not much from HAR to PGH; the biggest is Altoona. State College is *temptingly nearby*, and there's a nearly-straight train line running west from it which connects into the existing route. I really want Pennsylvania to spend a billion dollars (or whatever) punching a tunnel from Lewiston (on the east side of State College) through to State College, extending Keystones there and rerouting the Pennsylvanian there. State College has a larger metro area population than Altoona, and *college students*, which means it will punch massively above its weight for number of riders. It would make future Western Pennsylvania improvements much more likely.
But Pennsylvania should have other priorities:

-- Getting SEPTA into a state of good repair. SEPTA has the most decrepit stations on the NEC, for instance, some of which lack platforms.

-- Allentown/Bethelehem needs service to both Philadelphia and New York.

-- Scranton/Wilkes-Barre needs service to New York at least, and preferably to Philadelphia too.

-- Erie has more than twice the population of Altoona or State College, and a second (daytime stopping) frequency on the LSL route would be of great value there.

Glad to hear a shout out to State College and Wilkes Barre! I was born in Wilkes Barre and went to Penn State!

Did Steamtown once run trains between Wilkes Barre and Scranton? I remember some presidential candidate gave a speech off a train in Wilkes Barre. I know Steamtown is kind of famous in Scranton even though there isn't any trains there.

I believe NJ Transit is trying to connect Scranton (Lackawanna Cutoff?)

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).

I really feel there is enough ridership for an eastern PA to CHI train on its own (it would also help CHI to New Jersey). The Three Rivers ridership was very close to the CL. I get funding is an issue but if the losses are more manageable as several of you think they are then Amtrak certainly should be looking into it. I know there is definite talk to a 2nd PGH-NYP train. Maybe if Amtrak and PA chip in then PA gets its second train at a discount than if they had to pay for it mostly themselves. Show NJ how this train could help their state and maybe they will be open to helping. Roughly 5% of TR passengers rode either TRE or Newark to CHI. If the train is routed through Michigan and this gives Michigan their shot at direct East Coast service maybe they pitch in. Obviously Ohio won't fund anything. Of course New York can make the same deal with Michigan but CSX is clearly an issue (I heard from All Aboard Ohio that CSX is way worse to deal with than NS).

If Amtrak would do CHI-Empire-NJ-PHL in some way I would be happy too (although I'm guessing that would be very close to if not over 24 hours). I think a direct train from PHL to the Empire Corridor either serving or maybe with a Thruway to Toronto would also benefit Philadelphia at least.

 

[Eric S]

I'm not as familiar with the terminology. "South of the Lake"? Is that between BUF and ALB?

It's the project to provide dedicated passenger rail tracks heading east from Chicago through northwest Indiana.

EDIT: South of Lake Michigan

 

[Eric S]

I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).

Do you really think the train name significantly affects ridership? Not trying to be argumentative or snarky, just honestly curious. I would imagine most people would not give it much thought - some would not even know the name, others would not really think about what the name specifically refers to. In this case, with the Capitol Limited having a WAS section and a PHL/NYP section, I imagine many passengers would not even realize that the train splits/joins in PGH. In my experience it's certainly not unusual to encounter passengers on the Empire Builder or Lake Shore Limited who are unaware that the train splits/joins in SPK/ALB, and seem honestly unaware that the Empire Builder serves both PDX and SEA and the Lake Shore Limited both BOS and NYP.

But, as far as names go, if Broadway Limited is not available or used for whatever reason, how about Liberty Limited?

 

[afigg]

I'm not as familiar with the terminology. "South of the Lake"? Is that between BUF and ALB?

The "South of the Lake" route proposal refers to south of Lake Michigan from Chicago to Porter IN. It is a slow segment for Michigan service trains and the LSL & CL LD trains because the trains run on busy and congested NS freight tracks. The South of the Lake proposal is to build a new dedicated passenger track corridor from near Chicago Union Station to Porter IN which might have 90 or 110 mph speeds. The new track(s) would reduce trip time and improve schedule reliability for the Michigan service trains and the LSL & CL. It would also be used as a starting segment for proposed 110 mph corridors to Ft. Wayne - Toledo - Cleveland and Indianapolis - Cinncinati (branching off in NW Indiana), that is, if Ohio and Indiana someday support true corridor services to their major cities.

The challenge for the South of the Lake route is where the funding going to come from? Michigan just passed a transportation bill that raises the state gas tax and will provide $1.2 billion a year more for state transportation funding (in 4 to 5 years), so MI DOT should have some additional money available to spend on track and station improvements. But a $1 to $2 billion corridor project in other states, most of it in IN, is a project that will require significant federal funding as MI is not going to spend a lot of its money in Indiana. Michigan website on the CHI-DET-PON corridor with EIS documents.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).

Do you really think the train name significantly affects ridership? Not trying to be argumentative or snarky, just honestly curious. I would imagine most people would not give it much thought - some would not even know the name, others would not really think about what the name specifically refers to. In this case, with the Capitol Limited having a WAS section and a PHL/NYP section, I imagine many passengers would not even realize that the train splits/joins in PGH. In my experience it's certainly not unusual to encounter passengers on the Empire Builder or Lake Shore Limited who are unaware that the train splits/joins in SPK/ALB, and seem honestly unaware that the Empire Builder serves both PDX and SEA and the Lake Shore Limited both BOS and NYP.

Well if Amtrak ever did try to advertise in certain markets, I think it does make a difference. I have no data to back this up but I have a feeling the Broadway Limited was more popular than the Three Rivers was as it was around longer.

But, as far as names go, if Broadway Limited is not available or used for whatever reason, how about Liberty Limited?

LOVE IT!

 

[Anderson]

I'm hearing from several psots about the trouble with the LSL to Boston and that they have to transfer at Albany now. I'm pretty sure that's just temporary but temporary has been extended. I fear that even if the CL/Pennsylvanian hook does happen that something like this could happen and eastern PA is right back to square one. Also, the train will be considered a WAS train and I fear that once again Philly and eastern PA won't identify with the train. I felt the "Three Rivers" name was a complete disaster. The biggest market of the old TR was clearly CHI-PHL (11.2% according to the old NARP data). If they bring this train back as a stand alone, they need to use a Philadelphia or eastern Pennsylvania name (unfortunately Pennsylvanian and Keystone are taken).

Do you really think the train name significantly affects ridership? Not trying to be argumentative or snarky, just honestly curious. I would imagine most people would not give it much thought - some would not even know the name, others would not really think about what the name specifically refers to. In this case, with the Capitol Limited having a WAS section and a PHL/NYP section, I imagine many passengers would not even realize that the train splits/joins in PGH. In my experience it's certainly not unusual to encounter passengers on the Empire Builder or Lake Shore Limited who are unaware that the train splits/joins in SPK/ALB, and seem honestly unaware that the Empire Builder serves both PDX and SEA and the Lake Shore Limited both BOS and NYP.

But, as far as names go, if Broadway Limited is not available or used for whatever reason, how about Liberty Limited?

The way I see it, it's about branding more than the specific name. "Lincoln Service" means "this train goes from Chicago to St. Louis (or vice-versa) and has the following amenities...", "Acela" means something else, etc. With that said, I think if you add multiple trains on a given route it would be worth trying to work up some sort of "brand" for the route (e.g. "Silver" for New York-Florida, "Zephyr" for Chicago-west, etc.) with each train having a related name. Basically, naming a train (or a service) is a chance to build a brand beyond "well, it's a train..."

 

[jis]

If one were to follow the example of New York or North Carolina, in Pennsylvania, then all state funded service on the Main Line in Pennsylvania could be branded as Keystone. Just like all Water Level Route service in New York is branded Empire Service. Exceptions are those that continue on to outside the state destinations (Adirondack, Maple Leaf, Lake Shore Limited, Ethan Allen). Similarly all within NC service is branded Piedmont. Everything else has individual names.

 

[Seaboard92]

Personally I'm old fashioned enough that I prefer having an individual name on every train but I don't think many passengers know what the names are or care. So the name doesn't matter I don't think at all. Like one of the trains I'm operating next year the Game Day Express. I'm marketing it on that name because it is for a football game. But to most people it's just going to be we're taking the train to the game. I could ultimately call it the (School Name) Express but again it's still the train to the game. So I don't see the name as a big thing. Now I'm using my branding on the Christmas train I'm running. But my branding is more of a description of the experience that I'm offering. Like IP has the Train to Christmas Town which is branded on Ed's wife Peggy's book. And the Polar Express describes what people might see on that train. So the name does have some appeal but I don't think it has enough for ridership draw.

And the New York Nightmare CHI-(DET)-TOL-(CIN)-CLE-(TWO)-BUF-(MTR)-ALB-NYP-PHL wouldn't work well operationally. Just because the train would have to switch ends in NYP which is too busy of a station to do that in. I believe it's the busiest station in the US. Philly isn't busy enough to cause enough of a problem doing that move.

And slightly off topic I would majorly support service to State College from a business stand point. Not only would it be great for Amtrak from a passenger stand point. And it would help Penn State. But from my own perspective as a Game Day Charter operator I see some major benefits. I might have to start lobbying in PA for this. Wonder what the price would be. I think I have a new thing to research tonight.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I have said many times I feel that the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers train to serve eastern PA to CHI would be more valuable and serve more passengers than the Cardinal. I have also presented data that back my statement.

The arguments in favor of the Cardinal:

1) The states along the Cardinal support their train more than others.

Financially someone said Amtrak gets no direct money from states for the Cardinal and other LD routes. Others said if states pay for service that improves times or performance that is contributing to the train. I agree. But the Cardinal cannot run daily so as much as Virginia contributed the Buckingham Branch it is not enough because it is hindering daily service and therefore performance. This isn't my criteria, this is Amtrak's criteria.

2) Per day more passengers travel the Cardinal than the Three Rivers and once the Cardinal becomes daily they will have way more passengers than the Three Rivers.

And if Amtrak can run the Cardinal faster than the Three Rivers than it's a better train. Absolutely. But the fact is they can't. It is clear the Cardinal CANNOT run be run daily. The Three Rivers was a daily train and so was the Broadway Limited. So if their total ridership and revenue are more than the Cardinal then you have to respect that UNTIL the Cardinal runs daily.

3) We can't take trains from others just to start new trains.

Why not? If Train A is more beneficial to the Amtrak system (more R & R) than Train B I feel they should. If Amtrak made a mistake 20 years ago or 10 years ago, why can't they correct it? In the real world, if a company knew that selling a given product makes more money then they would absolutely change course. The reason why Amtrak made the decision in 1995 and 2005 isn't around in 2015 (literally).

4) Amtrak is not a company, it's a public service.

I feel it's both and I'm sure Amtrak does too. If they really considered only public service then why are there financial data all over their reports? And the finances are important because the better Amtrak does the less money they will need from Congress and I think it's clear as day where that money is coming from.

I'm guessing most if not all of you feel I have a personal problem with the Cardinal. Not true. I have an economic problem with the Cardinal. My point has always been Amtrak should try to maximize R & R. I argue and have presented data that backs up my argument. People say I just want this train for myself. I also want it for most of Eastern PA who I feel is neglected by Amtrak even though we have a very large population base and we support Amtrak with our wallets and our butts (PA is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among states and Philly is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among cities). I would gladly support trains if I felt they would significantly contribute financially to Amtrak. If the train loses money (and I get that most trains lose money) then any federal money going to support that train comes out of our tax money. So we should choose trains where losses are lower. I am not going to tell you I will only support trains that support PA. I have ridden plenty of trains that don't serve PA. Last summer, I rode the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr. There are other trains I know serve major markets and contribute a lot of money and serve many passengers so I am absolutely OK with my tax money going to them. I resent being called selfish. I would push for other trains in other markets if I felt they contributed positively to the Amtrak system even if I didn't ever ride the train.

This is a discussion forum and/or a debate. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me. I think when people have disagreements it adds to this forum. I welcome people who wish to counter argue and the opportunity to argue your arguments. I may not agree with you but if you argue in a respectful manner I can respect you. I will not respect personal attacks. Then again that's just one person in particular (I think).

 

[Thirdrail7]

You originally made a separate thread titled Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs Cardinal.

I have said many times I feel that the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers train to serve eastern PA to CHI would be more valuable and serve more passengers than the Cardinal. I have also presented data that back my statement.

The arguments in favor of the Cardinal:

1) The states along the Cardinal support their train more than others.

Financially someone said Amtrak gets no direct money from states for the Cardinal and other LD routes. Others said if states pay for service that improves times or performance that is contributing to the train. I agree. But the Cardinal cannot run daily so as much as Virginia contributed the Buckingham Branch it is not enough because it is hindering daily service and therefore performance. This isn't my criteria, this is Amtrak's criteria.

2) Per day more passengers travel the Cardinal than the Three Rivers and once the Cardinal becomes daily they will have way more passengers than the Three Rivers.

And if Amtrak can run the Cardinal faster than the Three Rivers than it's a better train. Absolutely. But the fact is they can't. It is clear the Cardinal CANNOT run be run daily. The Three Rivers was a daily train and so was the Broadway Limited. So if their total ridership and revenue are more than the Cardinal then you have to respect that UNTIL the Cardinal runs daily.

3) We can't take trains from others just to start new trains.

Why not? If Train A is more beneficial to the Amtrak system (more R & R) than Train B I feel they should. If Amtrak made a mistake 20 years ago or 10 years ago, why can't they correct it? In the real world, if a company knew that selling a given product makes more money then they would absolutely change course. The reason why Amtrak made the decision in 1995 and 2005 isn't around in 2015 (literally).

4) Amtrak is not a company, it's a public service.

I feel it's both and I'm sure Amtrak does too. If they really considered only public service then why are there financial data all over their reports? And the finances are important because the better Amtrak does the less money they will need from Congress and I think it's clear as day where that money is coming from.





I'm guessing most if not all of you feel I have a personal problem with the Cardinal. Not true. I have an economic problem with the Cardinal. My point has always been Amtrak should try to maximize R & R. I argue and have presented data that backs up my argument. People say I just want this train for myself. I also want it for most of Eastern PA who I feel is neglected by Amtrak even though we have a very large population base and we support Amtrak with our wallets and our butts (PA is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among states and Philly is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among cities). I would gladly support trains if I felt they would significantly contribute financially to Amtrak. If the train loses money (and I get that most trains lose money) then any federal money going to support that train comes out of our tax money. So we should choose trains where losses are lower. I am not going to tell you I will only support trains that support PA. I have ridden plenty of trains that don't serve PA. Last summer, I rode the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr. There are other trains I know serve major markets and contribute a lot of money and serve many passengers so I am absolutely OK with my tax money going to them. I resent being called selfish. I would push for other trains in other markets if I felt they contributed positively to the Amtrak system even if I didn't ever ride the train.

This is a discussion forum and/or a debate. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me. I think when people have disagreements it adds to this forum. I welcome people who wish to counter argue and the opportunity to argue your arguments. I may not agree with you but if you argue in a respectful manner I can respect you. I will not respect personal attacks. Then again that's just one person in particular (I think).

That being said, here is my response to your merged topic.

Let's end this quickly. If we are to believe all of your posts, then I propose this:get rid of EVERYTHING except the NEC and its feeder routes. The NEC used to operate 12-16 car trains, in addition to premium service and 12 car commuter trains.

Let's round up all of the eastern long distance trains and commit them to NEC service. It has the strongest population center, contributes more to the economy and generates more revenue. The trains are literally over flowing. With the additional equipment, we can run a third tier train that may make more stops, but provide additional service. It would also help the feeder routes along the SPG and ALB lines. Once the Viewliner 1s are certified for 125mph operation, you can use the sleeper cars for premium occupancy , like the conference car. It would truly get the most bang for your buck and losses would likely be lower. Along those lines, cut all train service and you wouldn't have to worry about them losing money.

Ridiculous, right? Indeed it is because as the many Congressional delegates have stated: we'll fund a nationwide service, not a northeast rail company. One of the members that made that statement doesn't have any train service whatsoever.

So, again....try to let this sink in....Pennsylvania has a train. Now, West Virginia and Virginia has their train. It is part of the nationwide system that Congress want Amtrak to operate. Congress does not currently wish to expand the system. The associated states are investing in the Cardinal's route with an eye for additional expansion (that Virginia is looking into funding.) If that helps WV, that s good for them.

That being said, the basis of this thread is really flawed since there is no Broadway or Three Rivers for the Cardinal to compete against.

Those trains DO NOT exist.

They are GONE.

They will come back it the associated states fund their operation or lobby Congress to bring them back. As I've said in previous threads, I don't see Pennsylvania or Ohio making any moves like VA, MA, TX,CA, NJ, CT, VT etc.

Your argument is barely worthy of refutation at this point and that is because value is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Numbers do not paint an entire picture. If they did, it is likely the long distance and some of the intermediate trains would cease to exist in favor of Northeast travel.

 

[keelhauled]

This stopped being a discussion a long time ago. All it is going round and round in circles. At this point you are actively derailing, as it were, actual discussions with your unending pretensions of victimhood. There are God only knows how many threads that have devolved into the exact same arguments and have gone nowhere, repeat ad infinitum. It's not adding to the forum.

 

[Seaboard92]

I'm not trying to attack you but I'm going to ask you some questions, or clarify some quotes.

Now I'm just going to state a fact you think eastern PA is neglected? My state has eight trains a day. And only two of those pass during decent hours. The others are all after dark, and one way might be decent but the other stinks. While Philly gets what 110 trains a day. That's one train for every thirteen thousand people. My state has one train for every 604,000 people. And tell me who gets better service. Sure we get the Auto-Train but it doesn't serve my state. And the nation as a whole has numbers like my state all over it's no isolated problem.

Is Philly really underserved? I know my state sees a train for every 604,000 people while Philly (As I don't know what cities you're basing as eastern PA, so I have no other method of computing it) gets one for every thirteen thousand. I'm not trying to argue on that one but merely understand how Philly is underserved and my state isn't.

1. Putting a fact out there. VA is putting a lot of money into the Buckingham Branch to see that the Cardinal gets better time keeping. Which is a really good thing. And yes the Cardinal does put a major damper on the Buckingham Branch with it's operation. As it is mostly a westbound railroad and the eastbound Cardinal can really throw their operations. Well the way coal is going right now I don't see the EX C&O being very busy in the near future. The route should have clearance for intermodal if it could handle Superliners in the 90s. But most of that is routed on the B&O. It would be a great relief valve for CSX in the midwest, and for that I don't see them all in out abandoning it. But I could see a regional operator taking over it, and they could potentially turn it around. And have a great railroad. So with that being said with the lines major commodity fading away the slots are going to open up, and it won't mess any other railroad up. I've just seen a line that ten years ago had thirty trains a day, go to being mothballed even though it had overhead traffic.

2. How can you compare the Cardinal and the Broadway Limited (I hate the Three Rivers name as you do so I'm going to leave it off)? The Cardinal has never been daily to my knowledge which hinders that. Plus the market has changed a lot in eleven years I would be willing to bet. So the numbers work, and can be used. They don't stand today for today right? So comparing the two is really a moot point if you ask me, but I could be open to discussion on that

3. What cities are you proposing helping by new service? I know that Ohio pretty much goes west in the morning and east in the evening. It would be nice to reverse that trend I would think. But that wouldn't help PHL or PGH I don't think. Plus it would mess up NYP. So is it the best service expansion we can offer Ohio? I'm not convinced on that, but try me I'm open.

4. Which routes do you think are mistakes? I know the facts show the Palmetto as one of three trains profitable above the rail. So I don't see how that would be a mistake, but maybe you can explain your reasoning.

5. I see how you are arguing the Cardinal doesn't do much and is a week performer. But lets look at it this way. The market it covers the best is a route that doesn't have public transit available to it. And the Cardinal is the best method. Which means it has an essential public service I would think. And the entire state of WV has worse service then Philly per capita. So it's not something we can compare well. WV has a train for every 462,500 (three days a week), and 925,000 the rest of the days, and that's just a small part of the state. I see that market having a lot of growth in parts of it. And I would be very interested to see what a daily train could do. And you're idea about running it from IND-STL or maybe KCY I think is a remarkable idea. And I think you really had a winner on that one. I would be interested to what either a section to STL/KCY or a tri weekly train to STL, and four days to CHI would do to the ridership.

5. Can you explain you're fourth point to me? It makes no sense to me but that's on me.

Lastly I'm not trying to attack you, but I am trying to defend my point of view on this. You and I are very similar minus some small details mostly that I have worked the industry and understand operations better then most people on the boards. But I'm not attacking you at all. I am debunking some facts but not attacking. And if I am or come off that way I'm sorry about that, I really am. And honestly I might be one of several or a handful I don't know but I have to say I admire you. You have something you care about and your passionate for it, and that's amazing. And something we should cherish and build upon. I wish I had half the passion you have for the Broadway Limited for my company. My business associates are always saying I don't care, but I do. And honestly even though the debate has went on for the entire month of November I have nothing ill to say about you at all. And I think I'm learning and you're learning which is beautiful. I know I don't know everything that's impossible if I did, trust me I would have a lot more money right about now. But I'm asking for you to understand that taking service away from a market that needs it isn't a good thing. If I was willing to make a bet I would say 85 percent of the entire country is underserved it's not just my home state or your home city. It's a problem everywhere. And honestly I think if you and I would join forces, we could change that for the nation. And America would have good service. I honestly don't want to argue with you I just want to move forward the discussion. If you would like me in my free time (and if you ask my business partners that's all the time) I can teach you basic operations, and rail industry business. It would be an honor on my end. I'm just entering the execution stage of my businesses but I've been in the active industry since 2010 in train service, and management. The truth of the matter I really quite like you. And if maybe you would listen to me, and I would listen to you probably could be great friends. I'm not trying to attack you, but only attack the facts. If I come off that way I'm sorry I didn't mean it that way. I hope you can accept that. I can get passionate about my trains (the Palmetto).

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

You originally made a separate thread titled Broadway Limited/Three Rivers vs Cardinal.

I have said many times I feel that the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers train to serve eastern PA to CHI would be more valuable and serve more passengers than the Cardinal. I have also presented data that back my statement.

The arguments in favor of the Cardinal:

1) The states along the Cardinal support their train more than others.

Financially someone said Amtrak gets no direct money from states for the Cardinal and other LD routes. Others said if states pay for service that improves times or performance that is contributing to the train. I agree. But the Cardinal cannot run daily so as much as Virginia contributed the Buckingham Branch it is not enough because it is hindering daily service and therefore performance. This isn't my criteria, this is Amtrak's criteria.

2) Per day more passengers travel the Cardinal than the Three Rivers and once the Cardinal becomes daily they will have way more passengers than the Three Rivers.

And if Amtrak can run the Cardinal faster than the Three Rivers than it's a better train. Absolutely. But the fact is they can't. It is clear the Cardinal CANNOT run be run daily. The Three Rivers was a daily train and so was the Broadway Limited. So if their total ridership and revenue are more than the Cardinal then you have to respect that UNTIL the Cardinal runs daily.

3) We can't take trains from others just to start new trains.

Why not? If Train A is more beneficial to the Amtrak system (more R & R) than Train B I feel they should. If Amtrak made a mistake 20 years ago or 10 years ago, why can't they correct it? In the real world, if a company knew that selling a given product makes more money then they would absolutely change course. The reason why Amtrak made the decision in 1995 and 2005 isn't around in 2015 (literally).

4) Amtrak is not a company, it's a public service.

I feel it's both and I'm sure Amtrak does too. If they really considered only public service then why are there financial data all over their reports? And the finances are important because the better Amtrak does the less money they will need from Congress and I think it's clear as day where that money is coming from.

I'm guessing most if not all of you feel I have a personal problem with the Cardinal. Not true. I have an economic problem with the Cardinal. My point has always been Amtrak should try to maximize R & R. I argue and have presented data that backs up my argument. People say I just want this train for myself. I also want it for most of Eastern PA who I feel is neglected by Amtrak even though we have a very large population base and we support Amtrak with our wallets and our butts (PA is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among states and Philly is 3rd in Amtrak passengers among cities). I would gladly support trains if I felt they would significantly contribute financially to Amtrak. If the train loses money (and I get that most trains lose money) then any federal money going to support that train comes out of our tax money. So we should choose trains where losses are lower. I am not going to tell you I will only support trains that support PA. I have ridden plenty of trains that don't serve PA. Last summer, I rode the Southwest Chief and the California Zephyr. There are other trains I know serve major markets and contribute a lot of money and serve many passengers so I am absolutely OK with my tax money going to them. I resent being called selfish. I would push for other trains in other markets if I felt they contributed positively to the Amtrak system even if I didn't ever ride the train.

This is a discussion forum and/or a debate. I don't expect everyone or anyone to agree with me. I think when people have disagreements it adds to this forum. I welcome people who wish to counter argue and the opportunity to argue your arguments. I may not agree with you but if you argue in a respectful manner I can respect you. I will not respect personal attacks. Then again that's just one person in particular (I think).

That being said, here is my response to your merged topic.

Let's end this quickly. If we are to believe all of your posts, then I propose this:get rid of EVERYTHING except the NEC and its feeder routes. The NEC used to operate 12-16 car trains, in addition to premium service and 12 car commuter trains.

Let's round up all of the eastern long distance trains and commit them to NEC service. It has the strongest population center, contributes more to the economy and generates more revenue. The trains are literally over flowing. With the additional equipment, we can run a third tier train that may make more stops, but provide additional service. It would also help the feeder routes along the SPG and ALB lines. Once the Viewliner 1s are certified for 125mph operation, you can use the sleeper cars for premium occupancy , like the conference car. It would truly get the most bang for your buck and losses would likely be lower. Along those lines, cut all train service and you wouldn't have to worry about them losing money.

Ridiculous, right? Indeed it is because as the many Congressional delegates have stated: we'll fund a nationwide service, not a northeast rail company. One of the members that made that statement doesn't have any train service whatsoever.

So, again....try to let this sink in....Pennsylvania has a train. Now, West Virginia and Virginia has their train. It is part of the nationwide system that Congress want Amtrak to operate. Congress does not currently wish to expand the system. The associated states are investing in the Cardinal's route with an eye for additional expansion (that Virginia is looking into funding.) If that helps WV, that s good for them.

That being said, the basis of this thread is really flawed since there is no Broadway or Three Rivers for the Cardinal to compete against.

Those trains DO NOT exist.

They are GONE.

They will come back it the associated states fund their operation or lobby Congress to bring them back. As I've said in previous threads, I don't see Pennsylvania or Ohio making any moves like VA, MA, TX,CA, NJ, CT, VT etc.

Your argument is barely worthy of refutation at this point and that is because value is subjective. One man's junk is another man's treasure. Numbers do not paint an entire picture. If they did, it is likely the long distance and some of the intermediate trains would cease to exist in favor of Northeast travel.

I see where you're coming from but I never said there should not be a national LD system. There should be and it should serve the nation. I feel one of Amtrak's responsibilities is to connect Amtrak's third and fourth largest cities directly. You all can say look at all Pennsylvania has. But everyone knows CHI is the east-west gateway and to not have a daily train makes one feel inferior. We've been through the states requirement. So Amtrak is saying if you want an LD train they have to chip in. Why don't the other states have to chip in? Why not tell Ohio we're going to go right through your state without stopping? It would be tough for the CL and LSL but eliminate one stop from the Cardinal which is in the middle of the night? They do that and I'll really say the value of the train will go down. Ohio is in a lucky situation that it's hard to get from CHI to the NEC without going through Ohio. But they've done their best to neglect PA as much as possible to the west.

Amtrak is making choices or made choices 10-20 years ago that don't favor Pennsylvania. I don't like that. I don't like people saying our state should have to pay for LD trains when others don't. Especially when we ride the good trains we get. If someone said let's just cut all routes through PA, that's almost six million passengers lost (almost four million in the state of Pennsylvania alone). As for improvements? How about the Keystone route? What are the speeds now?

I am saying what's important is a national LD system that serves major markets and major states. PHL-CHI is a hole. It's not the only one. Sunset East is a big hole which needs to be taken care of. There are plenty of cities that are not taken care of at all (Cincinnati, Nashville, Louisville, Las Vegas). Whether a given train or a given state is the weak link, I feel it is worth studying. I think you are putting way too much faith in Amtrak to just accept all the decisions they have made if you won't even put on the table to get rid of any train to start another. If Amtrak gets limited money they at least need to study how to put that money to good use.

Amtrak won't cut a train to add service elsewhere? How about in 1997 (they traded the Desert Wind and Pioneer for daily California Zephyr and Empire Builder). Not saying the decision was right or wrong but you can't say it's never been done.

 

[Ryan]

This stopped being a discussion a long time ago. All it is going round and round in circles. At this point you are actively derailing, as it were, actual discussions with your unending pretensions of victimhood. There are God only knows how many threads that have devolved into the exact same arguments and have gone nowhere, repeat ad infinitum. It's not adding to the forum.

Hence my statements in another of these train wreck threads to stop feeding the troll. If everyone stops responding, he'll get bored and leave.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I'm not trying to attack you but I'm going to ask you some questions, or clarify some quotes.

Now I'm just going to state a fact you think eastern PA is neglected? My state has eight trains a day. And only two of those pass during decent hours. The others are all after dark, and one way might be decent but the other stinks. While Philly gets what 110 trains a day. That's one train for every thirteen thousand people. My state has one train for every 604,000 people. And tell me who gets better service. Sure we get the Auto-Train but it doesn't serve my state. And the nation as a whole has numbers like my state all over it's no isolated problem.

Is Philly really underserved? I know my state sees a train for every 604,000 people while Philly (As I don't know what cities you're basing as eastern PA, so I have no other method of computing it) gets one for every thirteen thousand. I'm not trying to argue on that one but merely understand how Philly is underserved and my state isn't.

1. Putting a fact out there. VA is putting a lot of money into the Buckingham Branch to see that the Cardinal gets better time keeping. Which is a really good thing. And yes the Cardinal does put a major damper on the Buckingham Branch with it's operation. As it is mostly a westbound railroad and the eastbound Cardinal can really throw their operations. Well the way coal is going right now I don't see the EX C&O being very busy in the near future. The route should have clearance for intermodal if it could handle Superliners in the 90s. But most of that is routed on the B&O. It would be a great relief valve for CSX in the midwest, and for that I don't see them all in out abandoning it. But I could see a regional operator taking over it, and they could potentially turn it around. And have a great railroad. So with that being said with the lines major commodity fading away the slots are going to open up, and it won't mess any other railroad up. I've just seen a line that ten years ago had thirty trains a day, go to being mothballed even though it had overhead traffic.

2. How can you compare the Cardinal and the Broadway Limited (I hate the Three Rivers name as you do so I'm going to leave it off)? The Cardinal has never been daily to my knowledge which hinders that. Plus the market has changed a lot in eleven years I would be willing to bet. So the numbers work, and can be used. They don't stand today for today right? So comparing the two is really a moot point if you ask me, but I could be open to discussion on that

3. What cities are you proposing helping by new service? I know that Ohio pretty much goes west in the morning and east in the evening. It would be nice to reverse that trend I would think. But that wouldn't help PHL or PGH I don't think. Plus it would mess up NYP. So is it the best service expansion we can offer Ohio? I'm not convinced on that, but try me I'm open.

4. Which routes do you think are mistakes? I know the facts show the Palmetto as one of three trains profitable above the rail. So I don't see how that would be a mistake, but maybe you can explain your reasoning.

5. I see how you are arguing the Cardinal doesn't do much and is a week performer. But lets look at it this way. The market it covers the best is a route that doesn't have public transit available to it. And the Cardinal is the best method. Which means it has an essential public service I would think. And the entire state of WV has worse service then Philly per capita. So it's not something we can compare well. WV has a train for every 462,500 (three days a week), and 925,000 the rest of the days, and that's just a small part of the state. I see that market having a lot of growth in parts of it. And I would be very interested to see what a daily train could do. And you're idea about running it from IND-STL or maybe KCY I think is a remarkable idea. And I think you really had a winner on that one. I would be interested to what either a section to STL/KCY or a tri weekly train to STL, and four days to CHI would do to the ridership.

5. Can you explain you're fourth point to me? It makes no sense to me but that's on me.

Lastly I'm not trying to attack you, but I am trying to defend my point of view on this. You and I are very similar minus some small details mostly that I have worked the industry and understand operations better then most people on the boards. But I'm not attacking you at all. I am debunking some facts but not attacking. And if I am or come off that way I'm sorry about that, I really am. And honestly I might be one of several or a handful I don't know but I have to say I admire you. You have something you care about and your passionate for it, and that's amazing. And something we should cherish and build upon. I wish I had half the passion you have for the Broadway Limited for my company. My business associates are always saying I don't care, but I do. And honestly even though the debate has went on for the entire month of November I have nothing ill to say about you at all. And I think I'm learning and you're learning which is beautiful. I know I don't know everything that's impossible if I did, trust me I would have a lot more money right about now. But I'm asking for you to understand that taking service away from a market that needs it isn't a good thing. If I was willing to make a bet I would say 85 percent of the entire country is underserved it's not just my home state or your home city. It's a problem everywhere. And honestly I think if you and I would join forces, we could change that for the nation. And America would have good service. I honestly don't want to argue with you I just want to move forward the discussion. If you would like me in my free time (and if you ask my business partners that's all the time) I can teach you basic operations, and rail industry business. It would be an honor on my end. I'm just entering the execution stage of my businesses but I've been in the active industry since 2010 in train service, and management. The truth of the matter I really quite like you. And if maybe you would listen to me, and I would listen to you probably could be great friends. I'm not trying to attack you, but only attack the facts. If I come off that way I'm sorry I didn't mean it that way. I hope you can accept that. I can get passionate about my trains (the Palmetto).

No I respect what you say Seaboard and I'm glad we can get along.

I'm just curious about your statement about the Palmetto being profitable above the rails. I'm not saying it isn't true, I'd be curious to see the data. I mainly look at the monthly performance reports. The revenue numbers are low but since there are no sleepers that cuts down on the costs. I was surprised when seeing the ridership from Philadelphia on the Palmetto (close to the Florida trains and the Crescent). What are the other two trains profitable above the rails? Before the Palmetto, the last long day train I remember was the CHI-PHL Pennsylvanian and that was a failure (or was it?)

 

[Anderson]

The Palmetto statement comes from a Powerpoint presentation given to Congress a few years back. I forget where said file is, but someone should have a copy of it.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

St. Louis option.

I recall the Three River fail due to limited traffic west of Pittsburgh.

So Capital Limited dropping cars at Pittsburgh to be add to the Pennsylvanian is too tight, and you fear that the Pennsylvanian will suffer greatly.

So first question is how often does the Capital Limited miss that connection?

Ok now that we know the number of mis-connections are too high. Lets try the St. Louis option. Place a engine to protect the Capital Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh. When the Capital Limited is running late, and will miss the swap time. (Drop Dead Time). Now with the protect engine and a well staffed crew base, staff and run a extra train.

Problem solved.

Now we need to free up some equipment. Figure out the Bilevel to single level issues. Get a switch installed. Buy a new engine for Pittsburgh.

A little crowed sourcing, the Viewliner 2, the Midwest bilevels, and a add on to the engine order.

We have a train for you. Nothing to hard. Why so many pages to a simple issue?

 

[trainviews]

The thing is you are right in a few of your points and horribly wrong in some of your assumptions.

1. The Cardinal is pointless as an NEC to CHI connection. You're right about that

2. The present Cardinal is a weak economic performer, and if nothing can be done about that, it might not be sustainable in the long run.

3. A Broadway Limited or any of the other options through Pennsylvania are good routes and would most likely perfom better.

But you are seriously missing:

- That endpoint to endpoint traffic is very far from being the sole rationale of any LD train. The Cardinal is extreme in this sense, as it is more two overlapping corridors, but it works (absent the three-a-week schedule).

- That its financial weakness in large part is due to the three-a-week schedule and that there is serious work being done in order to enable it to go daily (Buckingham Branch and extra Viewliners), and that would probably bring its financial performance in line with the other eastern LD's

- And first and foremost you seem to believe that all that Amtrak needs to do to (re-)start another LD is to rob some other train of the equipment and then print the timetable. A few years back NS demanded a full extra track from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh in order to run an extra frequency. What are you looking at here? A billion and a half? More?

So even though the Broadway is probably one of the few trains that Amtrak could start without an act of congress (the 750 mile rule is really not that simple - another of your misunderstandings), who will pay for the needed track upgrades? In reality there is only one possibility - the state of Pennsylvania (just like Virginia is doing on the Buckingham Branch). I'm pretty sure that if Pennsylvania would approach Amtrak and say "Hey, we've got a billion and a half here and will do the upgrades if you run the train", Amtrak would do whatever they could to get the equipment. Actually the window is here right now, as the viewliner order can be added on to and Horizons will be in surplus in a few years. But Pennsylvania has done none of the like, have they? And that's not Amtraks fault, it's Pennsylvania prioritizing the Keystone corridor, probably for good reasons.

So was it the right decision to cut the Broadway/Three Rivers instead of another train. Maybe not, but it's water under the bridge, and making it a decision today of the Broadway versus the Cardinal or Palmetto is a false dictonomy. You can cut all the Cardinals you want, and you are still not a fraction of the way to a more direct PHI-CHI train. You will just have lost your connection to WV and southern Ohio too...