PHL-CHI Route Options

[Anderson]

I agree with almost everything you said. The main qualifications I'd put out there are:
(1) As you noted, the Viewliner II/Multi State Bilevel orders do open up the chance to add a train along this route in some form. Something like this is more or less planned in the form of the Cap-Pennsylvanian cars, of course, but at least in theory it might be possible to let the Pennsylvanian alone and work out a more complicated agreement to run a "second Pennsylvanian to Chicago" or something like that. I can't speak to the locomotive situation specifically, but in theory the equipment should become available in the next two years or so.

(2) I always presume that demands like that (a full extra track) are starting points for negotiations, not expected final settlements. If NS wants $1.5bn in improvements I'd be inclined to say that ought to get Amtrak/Pennsylvania a heck of a lot more than one slot pair HAR-PGH. I'd be inclined to settle for three pairs HAR-CHI (since that's all NS save a spot around Union Station) but two pairs might not be the worst deal ever. $250m or so feels like the high end for a single slot pair HAR-PGH...any more than that and you probably ought to be able to get two pairs minimum...if only because IIRC almost the entire route HAR-PGH was four tracks at one time so there shouldn't be any stupidly expensive bottlenecks.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

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

I think even I've given up on the Akron branch. I'm sure any new CHI-PHL train would probably go via TOL and CLE. That should improve traffic on that end. All Aboard Ohio suggested going via Michigan.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

They actually predicted 360,000 passengers a year which I would say is very ambitious. If you look at the document, they shifted the LSL to get into CHI close to 1pm to accommodate CLE-CIN which would mean they probably not guarantee western connections so that 360,000 probably includes a lot of NYP-CHI passengers.

St. Louis option.

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?

Well Amtrak has been talking about the Viewliner 2's since the PRIIA. I think I've heard more like 2017. I do like your ideas though.

I know they didn't do it for long but after they canceled the BL they did do CL-TR for a while before extending the TR to Chicago (I believe I was on that train and they did the connection in PGH).

1996 Timetables.org:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19960414n&item=0015

It looks like there were no sleepers on the TR back then and they just attached coaches to the CL. Could that be a temporary solution until the Viewliner 2's come and all of these problems get fixed? Any eastern PA passenger who wants a sleeper could just book a coach to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI but would not be required to change trains.

By summer 1997 (when I took my first Amtrak trip to California), the TR was running to CHI overnight but with only coaches and the dinette. Maybe the connection was too much a hassle.

1997 Timetables.org:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19970511n&item=0026

The first timetables.org timetable I could find with sleeper service (Heritage) on the TR was 1999. No dining car though and meals were not included in sleeper car service. Just a lounge car for food. Then again, that's the Silver Star now.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19991031n&item=0028

They went to Viewliners in 2001 and included meal service but there was no mention of a diner car.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0028

I actually couldn't find any instance of the TR ever having a dining car.

I'd love to pick Amtrak's brain way back in the 90's. Maybe back in 1996 they had every intention of TR to CHI but they couldn't do it immediately. So they first did the CL-TR, then they ran TR to CHI without sleepers, then installed the Heritage sleeper cars, and finally Viewliners. It took approximately 3 years to have sleeper service from CHI to PHL along the TR. But for those three years you could go direct from Eastern PA to CHI, you just couldn't have a sleeper and there was no dining car.

While many of you would find that unacceptable, I have never bought a sleeper car and have sparingly used the diner car. So if Amtrak decides today to run an overnight sleeper less car from PHL to CHI it wouldn't be that much different an experience than what I did all the way to California this past summer. Of course it would be inferior service but it would still be service. It would not be competitive to the CL or LSL in terms of ridership or revenue but if Amtrak is willing to make a go at it, it can't be too much more expensive than the Palmetto. If Amtrak decides to do CL-Pennsylvanian, you could ride coach from PHL (or HAR/LNC) to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI when it would be of most use (overnight).

I'm guessing Amtrak wants to have a full sleeper from PHL to CHI before starting it. We know they were burned by the PHL-CHI Pennsylvanian and maybe they weren't happy with the TR's numbers when they decided to cancel it (maybe they were low due to the lack of dining car service). If Amtrak did a CL-Pennsylvanian and only had sleeper service west of PGH, I would be thrilled. If they ran coaches and cafe from PHL to CHI, I would be thrilled. Passengers who want regular Amtrak service could still do connections. But as everyone knows, the direct service is the big thing I am thinking about. If Amtrak did in 2016-17 what they did in 1996-97 and build up to the Viewliner 2's, I will do cartwheels. Would I like a sleeper eventually and maybe a diner car breakfast now and then? Sure. But baby steps. I'd believe Amtrak is more serious about CHI-PHL if they gradually phased it in rather than wait for the Viewliner 2's like they did in the 90's.

 

[Seaboard92]

I agree with Anderson that if we put the money into the infrastructure then we deserve way more then one time slot additional. Now here is my question assuming the State wants to fork the money over. Would rebuilding part of the abandoned line from Lewistown toward State College. I believe some of that might be new construction. And then build over to the other line that goes into Tyrone. You lose Huntington PA as a stop. But you gain State College which appears to be larger. Plus college traffic that could help prop a train up. It would cost substantially more then the other routing. But it might have better ridership

 

[capltd29]

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

I think even I've given up on the Akron branch. I'm sure any new CHI-PHL train would probably go via TOL and CLE. That should improve traffic on that end. All Aboard Ohio suggested going via Michigan.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

They actually predicted 360,000 passengers a year which I would say is very ambitious. If you look at the document, they shifted the LSL to get into CHI close to 1pm to accommodate CLE-CIN which would mean they probably not guarantee western connections so that 360,000 probably includes a lot of NYP-CHI passengers.

St. Louis option.

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?

Well Amtrak has been talking about the Viewliner 2's since the PRIIA. I think I've heard more like 2017. I do like your ideas though.

I know they didn't do it for long but after they canceled the BL they did do CL-TR for a while before extending the TR to Chicago (I believe I was on that train and they did the connection in PGH).

1996 Timetables.org:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19960414n&item=0015

It looks like there were no sleepers on the TR back then and they just attached coaches to the CL. Could that be a temporary solution until the Viewliner 2's come and all of these problems get fixed? Any eastern PA passenger who wants a sleeper could just book a coach to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI but would not be required to change trains.

By summer 1997 (when I took my first Amtrak trip to California), the TR was running to CHI overnight but with only coaches and the dinette. Maybe the connection was too much a hassle.

1997 Timetables.org:

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19970511n&item=0026

The first timetables.org timetable I could find with sleeper service (Heritage) on the TR was 1999. No dining car though and meals were not included in sleeper car service. Just a lounge car for food. Then again, that's the Silver Star now.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19991031n&item=0028

They went to Viewliners in 2001 and included meal service but there was no mention of a diner car.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0028

I actually couldn't find any instance of the TR ever having a dining car.

I'd love to pick Amtrak's brain way back in the 90's. Maybe back in 1996 they had every intention of TR to CHI but they couldn't do it immediately. So they first did the CL-TR, then they ran TR to CHI without sleepers, then installed the Heritage sleeper cars, and finally Viewliners. It took approximately 3 years to have sleeper service from CHI to PHL along the TR. But for those three years you could go direct from Eastern PA to CHI, you just couldn't have a sleeper and there was no dining car.

While many of you would find that unacceptable, I have never bought a sleeper car and have sparingly used the diner car. So if Amtrak decides today to run an overnight sleeper less car from PHL to CHI it wouldn't be that much different an experience than what I did all the way to California this past summer. Of course it would be inferior service but it would still be service. It would not be competitive to the CL or LSL in terms of ridership or revenue but if Amtrak is willing to make a go at it, it can't be too much more expensive than the Palmetto. If Amtrak decides to do CL-Pennsylvanian, you could ride coach from PHL (or HAR/LNC) to PGH and then a sleeper from PGH to CHI when it would be of most use (overnight).

I'm guessing Amtrak wants to have a full sleeper from PHL to CHI before starting it. We know they were burned by the PHL-CHI Pennsylvanian and maybe they weren't happy with the TR's numbers when they decided to cancel it (maybe they were low due to the lack of dining car service). If Amtrak did a CL-Pennsylvanian and only had sleeper service west of PGH, I would be thrilled. If they ran coaches and cafe from PHL to CHI, I would be thrilled. Passengers who want regular Amtrak service could still do connections. But as everyone knows, the direct service is the big thing I am thinking about. If Amtrak did in 2016-17 what they did in 1996-97 and build up to the Viewliner 2's, I will do cartwheels. Would I like a sleeper eventually and maybe a diner car breakfast now and then? Sure. But baby steps. I'd believe Amtrak is more serious about CHI-PHL if they gradually phased it in rather than wait for the Viewliner 2's like they did in the 90's.

I think I'm missing the point of why a one-seat ride is so important. No disrespect. I don't think that many travelers care that much about it compared to other factors like cost and the time it takes to get there. You seemed to imply that people in philadelphia felt "inferior" because there was no direct train to Chicago. I think the truth is, most people don't care that much about it. On the scale of an individual Amtrak train which is somewhat small, lets say 200 seats... how many seats are going to be empty because there was no direct train from End point to end point, and people felt inferior versus because it is actually cheaper to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago (on dates that I sampled in February)? In this case, I would choose to fly if a sleeping car was not available, and I doubt that I am the only person.

IMO a train is more than just the end points. I think it is more important to have a day train from Cleveland to Chicago that serves Cleveland and Toledo (and others) at decent times, than it is to have a train that will traverse the same route, but originate in Philadelphia.

Just my two cents, as someone who has never had a direct train to Chicago (before I moved to Chicago, I lived in Richmond, VA).

 

[Anderson]

I believe there was a study somewhere that indicated that Amtrak lost like 40-55% of travelers when a transfer was involved. I find that a bit hard to believe...but after years of scattered, serious OTP problems (compounded by the once-daily nature of the network) I can see it. That being said, I suspect that if most routes had 3-5x daily trains on them and there were some ability to, if a train missed a connection, add capacity to a later train to accommodate pax then there would be far less of an impact. The issue, if you will, isn't connections per se...it's really down to frequency more than anything.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I believe there was a study somewhere that indicated that Amtrak lost like 40-55% of travelers when a transfer was involved. I find that a bit hard to believe...but after years of scattered, serious OTP problems (compounded by the once-daily nature of the network) I can see it. That being said, I suspect that if most routes had 3-5x daily trains on them and there were some ability to, if a train missed a connection, add capacity to a later train to accommodate pax then there would be far less of an impact. The issue, if you will, isn't connections per se...it's really down to frequency more than anything.

The CL PRIIA 2010: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PRIIA-210-CapitolLimited-PIP.pdf

"In particular, the PIP proposes establishing direct service between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, and Philadelphia/New York, along with other eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey points. This would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains during the night in Pittsburgh. This can be done by establishing through service with a set of cars to be switched between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh, giving passengers a single seat / bed ride with much greater comfort and convenience. Market research has shown that as much as 40 percent of potential ridership and revenue between any two points can be lost if passengers must physically get off one train and onto another no matter how “convenient” that swap might appear. The PIP will provide better service to those passengers who now connect at Pittsburgh by offering through coaches and adding new sleeping car service. This change will directly affect customer satisfaction, which should help to drive CSI scores higher. In addition, it is expected to attract more than 20,000 new passengers who do not use Amtrak today because of the inconvenience and discomfort of changing trains and accommodations in Pittsburgh in the dark. As a result, through service will increase revenue and improve cost recovery."

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I think I'm missing the point of why a one-seat ride is so important. No disrespect. I don't think that many travelers care that much about it compared to other factors like cost and the time it takes to get there. You seemed to imply that people in philadelphia felt "inferior" because there was no direct train to Chicago. I think the truth is, most people don't care that much about it. On the scale of an individual Amtrak train which is somewhat small, lets say 200 seats... how many seats are going to be empty because there was no direct train from End point to end point, and people felt inferior versus because it is actually cheaper to fly from Philadelphia to Chicago (on dates that I sampled in February)? In this case, I would choose to fly if a sleeping car was not available, and I doubt that I am the only person.

IMO a train is more than just the end points. I think it is more important to have a day train from Cleveland to Chicago that serves Cleveland and Toledo (and others) at decent times, than it is to have a train that will traverse the same route, but originate in Philadelphia.

Why not both? Use All Aboard Ohio's Three Rivers proposal (http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf).

Seaboard92 was concerned about the arrival time in NYP (8:58am). Just move it back a few minutes so it arrives in NYP after 9am.

Of course this assumes NS will allow a 2nd train between PGH and NYP.

This appeared in Pittsburgh's Post Gazette's online edition:

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2015/11/15/Brian-O-Neill-Rail-ridership-is-up-whats-lacking-are-frequent-trains/stories/201511150103

This was back in September:

http://www.post-gazette.com/opinion/brian-oneill/2015/09/17/Brian-O-Neill-Addition-of-Amtrak-train-is-up-in-air/stories/201509170026

 

[Anderson]

I was unaware of this report (or of the study indicated looking at extending the Pennsylvanian via Detroit) until now; thank you for the info. I do think that routing the Pennsylvanian via Detroit makes a phenomenal amount of sense as it takes "long enough" getting to Chicago (the old routing was bedeviled by lousy times into and out of Chicago...departing eastbound smack in the middle of the night with no sleeper? Bad Idea...I suspect the Palmetto only "got away with it" as well as it did because you had two solid daylight segments (Miami-Tampa and Charleston-New York)...but I suspect even there, the lack of a sleeper didn't help things (and indeed was only done as a side-effect of the botch-up that was the Heritage-Viewliner transition IIRC).

With that being said, I strongly believe this timetable makes a disaster out of the Lake Shore Limited (which loses basically all LD connections at Chicago and, in the process, effectively trades connecting Michigan to the East Coast for cutting off upstate New York from the West. Telling someone from Buffalo/Syracuse/Rochester to go to points west of Chicago via New York is not a winning proposition, the times for the LSL in upstate are horrid, and per the LSL PIP you'd likely be smashing ridership into the ground in a slew of the biggest city pairs on the route (CHI-BUF, CHI-ROC, and CHI-SYR make up 3 of the top 5 markets; CHI-NYP is #1 (and would likely get drubbed hard as well) while CHI-ALB might survive as a major pair...depending on how much of that traffic connects. NYP-SYR and NYP-ROC, also in the top ten, would likely take a hit (though probably not quite as bad...I can, in fact, see a market emerge there insofar as this train complements existing service...though I suspect there would be pressure to extend at least one evening Empire train to fill in the gap there).

Edit: Based on the cost estimates, of the options on that report I'd probably push to implement:
-Daily Cardinal...probably adjusting the times to something closer to what the train had when it only ran WAS-CHI but operating NYP-CHI (run it right on the heels of the Palmetto if you have to; NYP isn't the only market to look at...PHL, WIL, and BAL all have workable times on said train, and if Amtrak could/would allow it they might be able to pile on some NYP-WAS/ALX traffic to fill seats). The operational needs are small here.

-Pennsylvanian via Detroit. Again, limited operational requirements which, when combined with covering Detroit, make this a winner.

-Cincinnati LSL section and/or Broadway/National Limited restoration. I'd need to tease out what the latter would really look like, but these also seem to be winners.

The Florida service option does not look like it would be a winner while the Three Rivers option seems to be touch-and-go (and I'd like to know how it is different from the Broadway option). I'll say that on the LSL front, if you're going to cut all those connections with one train then you need to seriously look at a second LSL...but a second LSL just seems like a good idea to begin with.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I was unaware of this report (or of the study indicated looking at extending the Pennsylvanian via Detroit) until now; thank you for the info. I do think that routing the Pennsylvanian via Detroit makes a phenomenal amount of sense as it takes "long enough" getting to Chicago (the old routing was bedeviled by lousy times into and out of Chicago...departing eastbound smack in the middle of the night with no sleeper? Bad Idea...I suspect the Palmetto only "got away with it" as well as it did because you had two solid daylight segments (Miami-Tampa and Charleston-New York)...but I suspect even there, the lack of a sleeper didn't help things (and indeed was only done as a side-effect of the botch-up that was the Heritage-Viewliner transition IIRC).

With that being said, I strongly believe this timetable makes a disaster out of the Lake Shore Limited (which loses basically all LD connections at Chicago and, in the process, effectively trades connecting Michigan to the East Coast for cutting off upstate New York from the West. Telling someone from Buffalo/Syracuse/Rochester to go to points west of Chicago via New York is not a winning proposition, the times for the LSL in upstate are horrid, and per the LSL PIP you'd likely be smashing ridership into the ground in a slew of the biggest city pairs on the route (CHI-BUF, CHI-ROC, and CHI-SYR make up 3 of the top 5 markets; CHI-NYP is #1 (and would likely get drubbed hard as well) while CHI-ALB might survive as a major pair...depending on how much of that traffic connects. NYP-SYR and NYP-ROC, also in the top ten, would likely take a hit (though probably not quite as bad...I can, in fact, see a market emerge there insofar as this train complements existing service...though I suspect there would be pressure to extend at least one evening Empire train to fill in the gap there).

Edit: Based on the cost estimates, of the options on that report I'd probably push to implement:

-Daily Cardinal...probably adjusting the times to something closer to what the train had when it only ran WAS-CHI but operating NYP-CHI (run it right on the heels of the Palmetto if you have to; NYP isn't the only market to look at...PHL, WIL, and BAL all have workable times on said train, and if Amtrak could/would allow it they might be able to pile on some NYP-WAS/ALX traffic to fill seats). The operational needs are small here.

-Pennsylvanian via Detroit. Again, limited operational requirements which, when combined with covering Detroit, make this a winner.

-Cincinnati LSL section and/or Broadway/National Limited restoration. I'd need to tease out what the latter would really look like, but these also seem to be winners.

The Florida service option does not look like it would be a winner while the Three Rivers option seems to be touch-and-go (and I'd like to know how it is different from the Broadway option). I'll say that on the LSL front, if you're going to cut all those connections with one train then you need to seriously look at a second LSL...but a second LSL just seems like a good idea to begin with.

Nice to see someone else read and commented on the All Aboard Ohio proposals.

I would agree with the LSL and there was a comment in the comment section saying the LSL schedule adjustment was bad. They actually did not reroute the LSL to Michigan, they added the 3C route to connect with the LSL in CLE (the same poster suggested to connect the 3C route in CLE with the TR instead).

As for the TR, it is simply to give better hours to CLE and TOL. A side effect would be overnight service between PGH and PHL where you can get on at one end and wake up at the other. Of course the passengers in the middle are stuck in the graveyard shift. If you do AAO's Pennsylvanian and Three Rivers, the graveyard shift for the TR is not a death sentence. Assuming they do the TR and not the Pennsylvanian extension, it still helps the in between cities as it gives them a direct route to CHI although at a horrible time. Let's say I live in HAR or Altoona. I can either get on the TR at HAR at 1:46am (Altoona 4:16am) and go through to CHI or I can do the connection in PGH and wait almost four hours in PGH. You're not going to have to arrive in the station four hours early. On the return, there isn't either the 2.5 hr wait between 5:05am and 7:30am or the missed connection. And when you get to your home city (Altoona 2:14am, Harrisburg 5:08am), you can either go home if you parked there or have a friend or loved one pick you up. I'm not saying it's better but it's still an option.

 

[Seaboard92]

The added PIP numbers for an additional 20,000 equals out to 27 passengers a day. The LSL serves it's market right now really well. I honestly think we need a second LSL on a night carding in New York State. And for the Broadway I would be more tempted with equipment to run it on the original PRR the whole way provided infrastructure could be updated. Then make the second LSL the Ohio state Limited. And it has the CIN section I proposed

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The added PIP numbers for an additional 20,000 equals out to 27 passengers a day. The LSL serves it's market right now really well. I honestly think we need a second LSL on a night carding in New York State. And for the Broadway I would be more tempted with equipment to run it on the original PRR the whole way provided infrastructure could be updated. Then make the second LSL the Ohio state Limited. And it has the CIN section I proposed

Original PRR?

 

[Anderson]

    |  41  |  43  |  47  |  49  |  29  ||  30  |  48  |  46  |  42  |  40  |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 1930 | 1530 | ---- || ---- | 1823 | 1027 | 1803 | 0908 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2200 | 1800 | ---- || ---- | 1545 | 0745 | ---- | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2240 | 1840 | ---- || ---- | 1450 | 0730 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 2340 | ---- || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 |
CLE | 1035 | 2310 | 0745 | 0345 | 0159 || 0145 | 0535 | 2130 | 0440 | 2020 |
TOL | 1240 | 0115 | 0955 | 0555 | 0508 || 2349 | 0320 | 1930 | 0245 | 1835 |
TOL | 1250 | 0145 | 1015 | 0615 | 0522 || 2339 | 0250 | 1920 | 0225 | 1825 |
DET | 1500 | 0415 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 2359 | 1650 |
CHI | 1800 | 0725 | 1345 | 0945 | 0845 || 1840 | 2130 | 1400 | 1900 | 1150 |

The changes here are a bit complicated. 48/49 is, broadly speaking, the existing LSL. With that on the table, I allowed myself some liberty to move 46/47 (the "altered LSL") to enable what connections I could and to space things out a bit more:
-47 transfers to 41, albeit with a delay (a Thruway probably works a bit better here)
-43 has a messy transfer to 49; it can also transfer to 29
-42 transfers to 48
-40 transfers to 46
--I'd like to flip so either the 42-48 or 40-46 transfer goes the other way (to allow at least a theoretical transfer to another train). However, 30 does transfer (messily) to 42.
-One train on each route connects with the Western trains.

So unless I've gotten something upside down there's a theoretical transfer pairing for every city in the mix. I also "nudged" a few trains out of the rush hour peaks (0700-0900 and 1600-1800) at NYP.

 

[Seaboard92]

Philly the original PRR I'm referring to is routing it from PGH via Fort Wayne and Lima. As that's a route that doesn't have service and Fort Wayne is a nice market. I would rather leave the Cleveland market to a new LSL double or the three C routing.

 

[Anderson]

Philly the original PRR I'm referring to is routing it from PGH via Fort Wayne and Lima. As that's a route that doesn't have service and Fort Wayne is a nice market. I would rather leave the Cleveland market to a new LSL double or the three C routing.

I'd support routing trains down that line if the Chicago-Columbus project ever gained steam (said project would knock about 90 minutes off of Chicago-Lima from the 1990 timetable); the problem, on some core level, is that there are three desirable routings through OH/IN/MI (via Cleveland-Detroit, via Cleveland-South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and plenty of room to wind up with one (or more) routes ending up with non-connecting trains.

With that being said, I'd rather get a few high-frequency corridors which have good service rolling rather than trying to get everyone a once-a-day train...and given the choice between Detroit and Fort Wayne, I think Detroit (and the rest of Michigan) has some promise...not to mention room to possibly negotiate for some state support...whereas I think northern Indiana is a slightly weaker market...not to mention likely needing a lot more work.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 1930 | 1530 | ---- || ---- | 1823 | 1027 | 1803 | 0908 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2200 | 1800 | ---- || ---- | 1545 | 0745 | ---- | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2240 | 1840 | ---- || ---- | 1450 | 0730 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 2340 | ---- || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 |
CLE | 1035 | 2310 | 0745 | 0345 | 0159 || 0145 | 0535 | 2130 | 0440 | 2020 |
TOL | 1240 | 0115 | 0955 | 0555 | 0508 || 2349 | 0320 | 1930 | 0245 | 1835 |
TOL | 1250 | 0145 | 1015 | 0615 | 0522 || 2339 | 0250 | 1920 | 0225 | 1825 |
DET | 1500 | 0415 | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 2359 | 1650 |
CHI | 1800 | 0725 | 1345 | 0945 | 0845 || 1840 | 2130 | 1400 | 1900 | 1150 |

Cool table, Anderson! Do you have special software to make it?

Is there any possibility to running 46 and 47 via Michigan to allow Michigan-Empire Corridor in addition to Michigan-Pennsylvanian route? You'd probably have to shift the CHI times if you do so but since it won't be used for transfer to the west it should be flexible. If there's too many trains going that route, you can always move 40/41 back to the South Bend, Indiana route or as Seaboard92 had said via Fort Wayne although that would be a huge challenge.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Philly the original PRR I'm referring to is routing it from PGH via Fort Wayne and Lima. As that's a route that doesn't have service and Fort Wayne is a nice market. I would rather leave the Cleveland market to a new LSL double or the three C routing.

I'd support routing trains down that line if the Chicago-Columbus project ever gained steam (said project would knock about 90 minutes off of Chicago-Lima from the 1990 timetable); the problem, on some core level, is that there are three desirable routings through OH/IN/MI (via Cleveland-Detroit, via Cleveland-South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and plenty of room to wind up with one (or more) routes ending up with non-connecting trains.

With that being said, I'd rather get a few high-frequency corridors which have good service rolling rather than trying to get everyone a once-a-day train...and given the choice between Detroit and Fort Wayne, I think Detroit (and the rest of Michigan) has some promise...not to mention room to possibly negotiate for some state support...whereas I think northern Indiana is a slightly weaker market...not to mention likely needing a lot more work.

If we really want to dream, how about CHI-IND-Columbus-PGH-PHL? Or CHI-IND-CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL? Which tracks would be used, who owns them, and what are there conditions?

 

[jis]

Adding train 38/39 "Lake Cities" the moral equivalent of Palmetto on the Water Level Route to Detroit.... In New York State it runs one hour ahead of the Maple Leaf westbound and one hour behind the Maple Leaf eastbound, thus adding an useful early morning and late evening service to New York State too, while providing daytime connectivity to Ohio, and Michigan.

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 | 39 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 | 38 |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 1930 | 1530 | ---- | 0615 || ---- | 1823 | 1027 | 1803 | 0908 | 2250 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2200 | 1800 | ---- | 0850 || ---- | 1545 | 0745 | ---- | ---- | 2015 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2240 | 1840 | ---- | 0900 || ---- | 1450 | 0730 | ---- | ---- | 1955 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 2340 | ---- | 1500 || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- | 1405 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- | 1510 || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- | 1400 |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 | ---- || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 | ---- || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 | ---- || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 | 1830 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 |
CLE | 1035 | 2310 | 0745 | 0345 | 0159 | 1840 || 0145 | 0535 | 2130 | 0440 | 2020 | 1040 |
TOL | 1240 | 0115 | 0955 | 0555 | 0508 | 2045 || 2349 | 0320 | 1930 | 0245 | 1835 | 0835 |
TOL | 1250 | 0145 | 1015 | 0615 | 0522 | 2055 || 2339 | 0250 | 1920 | 0225 | 1825 | 0825 |
DET | 1500 | 0415 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2305 || ---- | ---- | ---- | 2359 | 1650 | 0615 |
CHI | 1800 | 0725 | 1345 | 0945 | 0845 | ---- || 1840 | 2130 | 1400 | 1900 | 1150 | ---- |
If an overnight train from Detroit to Chicago arriving very early in Chicago and vice versa arriving very early in Detroit is needed, it could be an extension of this. But that will significantly increase the cost of operation since it will need all sorts of additional night service related features, unless a 66/67 equivalent will suffice.

Philly, the CHI-IND-CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL could either use the proposed upgrade route via Steubeneville that the Ohio folks propose, getting to Columbus from CIN of course via the 3C route. Or it could head upto Crestline from Columbus (via the 3C route) and follow the old PRR route to PGH. That portion has been in use by NS I believe, if I am not remembering wrong.

 

[Seaboard92]

CHI-IND is a mess as far as track ownership, I want to say most of it is CSX, but around Chicago I want to say it hits the majority of the Class One Railroads. IND-CIN the current routing is on CSX. CIN-COL is both NS and CSX, but I would go for the NS track in this case because it has more on line cities, and is the route I support for the three C. From COL-PGH it's complicated if you we're to run on the EX PRR Panhandle line which is how the PRR varnish made it to CIN you would be on one shortline and one regional. The Columbus and Ohio River Railroad a G&W property, and then the Wheeling&Lake Erie Railroad. Then NS PGH-HAR, followed by Amtrak HAR-NYP. Can someone teach me how to make those charts? Personally I think the Fort Wayne routing in this case would be the simplest of routings. It's the CFE from upper Indiana to Crestline, then a small portion of CSX. Then NS all the way to HAR.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Any tracks from IND to Columbus directly? The old National Limited route?

 

[Seaboard92]

I'll have to look at my atlas. This may take a bit. I'm currently typing up some proposals. There might be a route.

 

[Hal]

I'll have to look at my atlas. This may take a bit. I'm currently typing up some proposals. There might be a route.

They should rename this forum Fantasy Railroad.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Seaboard92]

Actually the proposal is for my Game Day Special next October and for a second train in next November. Then car buying

 

[Anderson]

Something worth noting with the above (and which I was reminded of in the CHI-DEN thread): Midwest HSR has a major set of improvements CHI-CLE proposed which would knock something like three hours off of that section. Some of that is South of the Lake, some of it is improvements further along.

As to the point about playing "fantasy railroad"...I do think we're trying to be realistic here, but there have at least been feasibility studies done on a lot of what we're talking about. The question I'm trying to tackle with all of this is taking a set of those ideas and trying to make a coherent 10-20 year vision for several large portions of the system. All Aboard Ohio has run numbers on the two Broadways, MWHSR has run numbers on 2-4 Lake Shores...and so on.

I'd also point out that a system where New York actually finishes their HSR program on options 90A, 90B, or 110 alongside a Cleveland-Chicago HSR route is not fantasyland IMHO (I'm far less optimistic about option 125, though if you combine that with a three-hour knock off on the other end the total savings would run somewhere in the range of 5:00-5:30 assuming we could get on or more LD trains on the new route...which would actually smoke the best times the NYC was ever able to manage).

Edit: Even with 90A, if you're willing to force 448/449 to a cross-platform transfer and adjust scheduling, there's no reason you couldn't shave an hour off the timecard for the NYP-BUF trains: I count 15 minutes of improvement NYP-ALB and 20 ALB-BUF (35 total). I don't see why you couldn't manage a major passenger load and locomotive swap in about an hour if you're not doing a railcar ballet alongside it.

 

[Anderson]

First of all, to answer the question asked above...we don't use a special program. I write out my timetables in Notepad (which allocates a fixed number of pixels per character space, and thus makes it easy to get things to line up.

Second, some further thoughts:
(1) Knocking three hours out CLE-CHI (thus taking roughly a 7:00 trip down to around 4:00) basically allows you to run every East Coast-Chicago train using that line down to using two sets. The possible exception would be if a train runs via Detroit (though there would be some gains for a CLE-TOL-DET-CHI train both at South of the Lake and CLE-TOL). Basically you save about 6:00 on a round-trip (perhaps a bit less on the Capitol Limited, which seems to have a rather aggressive schedule on the WB route now). This would result in the following reductions:
-NYP-PGH-CHI: Reduced from 18:45 to 16:15 (I'm taking a stab here since the Cap and LSL have different timings EB).
-NYP-ALB-CHI: Reduced from 19:05 to 16:05
-WAS-PGH-CHI: Reduced from 17:40 to 14:40

(2) Going with an hour of improvement NYP-ALB-BUF (which basically only requires choosing 90A the smallest set of improvements on the route...a bit over a billion, but far less than the other plans) knocks NYP-ALB-CHI down to 15:05. Choosing 125 would, presuming an LD is routed over the express tracks, wold knock the time down by about 2:30 (I count 0:15 NYP-ALB, 2:10 ALB-Buffalo, and I'm going to throw in 0:05 at ALB) though you could feasibly bump the savings to 2:45 if you leaned on the situation at Albany. That would knock NYP-ALB-CHI down to 13:35 or so (and likely leave all of us complaining to no end about the slow track BUF-CLE...which is, to be fair, one of the most glaring gaps in the HSR plans). Unfortunately, this also comes at the price of an extra $13bn or so. In the middle, choosing 110 knocks 70 minutes out of the runtime (which per above could probably be nudged to a total of 90 minutes of savings). That would still get you down to 14:35 or so.

(3) If you start driving runtimes down aggressively like this, you not only reduce the equipment need by a set or so...I think you could work things out so as to reduce the food service need on some of the trains. For example, how much could be saved by detaching the dining car in Albany (done with the locomotive change) for a post-rush hour train? You'd have enough time for at least one full seating, possibly two seatings if you're aggressive, on the way up...but a train leaving at 1900 or 1930 probably wouldn't need the diner past ALB (you'd be getting out of dinner time anyway) and I think you could manage a passable breakfast out of the cafe. I'd also seriously look at the diner-club option (again...sigh...) to cut down to one FSC overall and/or doing "Acela-style" meals for overnight pax boarding at NYP and just ditching the diner altogether.

So, with all of this in mind, I've hashed out a new set of timetables based on the following assumptions:
-NYP-PGH: Unchanged at 9:15
-WAS-PGH: Unchanged at 7:40
-PGH Stop Unchanged at 0:10
-PGH-CLE: Unchanged at 2:55
--WAS-CLE Unchanged at 10:45
--NYP-CLE Unchanged at 12:20
-CLE Stop: 0:10 per train
-CHI-CLE: 4:00 per train, divided as 1:10 CLE-TOL and 2:40 TOL-CHI, and a 10-minute stop at TOL.
--Total Runtime WAS-CHI: 14:55
--Total Runtime NYP-CHI: 16:30

-NYP-ALB: 2:05 per train (vs 2:40 at present)
-ALB Stop: 0:20 per train
-ALB-BUF: 4:25 per train (using option 90A, and presuming that the LSL still saves 0:10 via cut stops)
-BUF Stop: 0:05 per train
-BUF-CLE: 3:25 per train
-CLE Stop: 0:10 per train
-CHI-CLE: 4:00 per train, divided as 1:10 CLE-TOL and 2:40 TOL-CHI, and a 10-minute stop at TOL.
--Total Runtime NYP-CHI: 14:30

I'm presuming no further improvements DET-CHI (the implied runtime in the plans is 4:00, which is well ahead of what exists now).

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 | 39 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 | 38 |
NYP | 2150 | 1052 | 2055 | 1655 | ---- | 0810 || ---- | 1541 | 0811 | 1803 | 0908 | 2100 |
PHL | 2312 | 1215 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1242 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1426 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1436 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2300 | 1900 | ---- | 1015 || ---- | 1336 | 0606 | ---- | ---- | 1855 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2320 | 1920 | ---- | 1035 || ---- | 1316 | 0546 | ---- | ---- | 1835 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0345 | 2345 | ---- | 1500 || ---- | 0851 | 0121 | ---- | ---- | 1410 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 2350 | ---- | 1510 || ---- | 0846 | 0116 | ---- | ---- | 1400 |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1605 | ---- || 1305 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 1955 | ---- | ---- | 2348 | ---- || 0520 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2005 | ---- | ---- | 2359 | ---- || 0505 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 2305 | 0717 | 0317 | 0253 | 1830 || 0154 | 0550 | 2159 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 |
CLE | 1040 | 2315 | 0727 | 0327 | 0159 | 1840 || 0144 | 0540 | 2149 | 0450 | 2020 | 1040 |
TOL | 1150 | 0025 | 0837 | 0437 | 0508 | 1950 || 0034 | 0430 | 2039 | 0340 | 1835 | 0930 |
TOL | 1200 | 0035 | 0847 | 0447 | 0522 | 2000 || 0024 | 0420 | 2029 | 0330 | 1825 | 0920 |
DET | 1410 | 0245 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2210 || ---- | ---- | ---- | 0120 | 1650 | 0710 |
CHI | 1810 | 0645 | 1227 | 0827 | 0945 | ---- || 2144 | 0140 | 1749 | 2120 | 1250 | ---- |
ALL TIMES EASTERN*

I know some of the times at each end are problematic (post-midnight out of CHI on 48, into NYP at 0811 on 46, etc.). I'm going to massage from here, but I wanted to get the base times more or less right first. The adjustments were made by moving times toward either Buffalo (on the east end) or Cleveland (on the west end). I would note that CLE-CHI direct takes 4:00 under this, but CLE-DET-CHI takes roughly 7:30.

*Because Anderson cannot, for the life of him, get the timezone changes right...

 

[Seaboard92]

With a run like that I believe we could win some of the business travel back. Talk about the 21st Century Limited. It would be a fast run. And it would also allow for there to be a day train one the whole route that wouldn't be as intolerable.