PHL-CHI Route Options

[Eric S]

I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.

You wouldn't be saying that if you don't have a route.

Of course everyone wants *their* station to have service, preferably frequent service.

But, within a general travel corridor (where the possible routes are largely parallel and not too far apart), let's say CHI-TOL, I tend to think it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each. Frequent service drives ridership. This has been demonstrated time and again. Double service and ridership more than doubles. And, it means fewer stations to construct and maintain. So, pick either Fort Wayne or South Bend, and then upgrade tracks/add capacity, add trains, improve or add stations to that one route. And run dedicated shuttle bus connections to any important points missed along the not chosen route.

 

[Anderson]

I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.

You wouldn't be saying that if you don't have a route.

Of course everyone wants *their* station to have service, preferably frequent service.

But, within a general travel corridor (where the possible routes are largely parallel and not too far apart), let's say CHI-TOL, I tend to think it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each. Frequent service drives ridership. This has been demonstrated time and again. Double service and ridership more than doubles. And, it means fewer stations to construct and maintain. So, pick either Fort Wayne or South Bend, and then upgrade tracks/add capacity, add trains, improve or add stations to that one route. And run dedicated shuttle bus connections to any important points missed along the not chosen route.

Not to mention raw cost. For example, let's presume that once you get outside of SotL you can get a good "full" route to PGH or BUF for $1bn but you can only run 4x daily trains east for the foreseeable future because of equipment and capital limitations. Pick your reason, that's the limit. Ok, do you spend $2bn getting two routes up and running (say, CHI-CLE-BUF and CHI-COL-PGH) and give each route 2x daily service or do you spend $1bn getting one route up and running and then spend the other $1bn somewhere else on that route? I think it's also fair to say that you might be able to work a better deal for multiple slots on a single line than a single pair slot on multiple lines...if I'm a Class I, I'd like to be able to have one line be "clear" of passenger trains (IRROPS notwithstanding) and one line simply be bogged down with them rather than having every line get disrupted once or twice per day. Heck, I'd probably rather sell a given line to insert-agency-here and retain trackage rights than have "disruptive" passenger trains blowing through all over the place screwing with my intermodals.

If we had unlimited money and unlimited trains, I'd agree that we ought to pursue multiple routes here. The problem is that those routes take money (both construction and operation) and I'd rather see money that might go into a second closely-spaced route instead put into another route somewhere else (whether we'd be talking a feeder route in the Midwest or an LD route out west).

Also, while we're on this topic: If it made operational and financial sense (I can assure you that it does not), as much as I like having a station a mile from my house (I've walked home from it before) I'd happily trade that station and that spur line for high-frequency service over in Norfolk. This is actually a decent parallel to the Ohio situation, so let me elaborate:

-If I leave from NFK (the earliest train out of Hampton Roads), I have to either take the one NFK-bound train back home or play the shuttle bus game from the two NPN trains (or get someone to drive me over there, either to catch the train or retrieve my car)

-If I leave from NPN, I have to take an NPN train back (which means that I cannot leave WAS later than about 1400 on weekdays). This can be an issue if I'm, say, returning on the Cap on an LD trip...or, heck, if I'm visiting someone in DC and actually want an afternoon meeting.

-If I leave from RVR, I have a full suite of departures from 0600-1900 northbound and about 0700-1930 southbound and can pick-and-choose as I desire.

Given that situation, it should be no surprise which station I use most. To put it bluntly, once-twice daily service is acceptable. It is, in some cases, all we can be hopeful for. But it is not a desirable situation; I've seen thresholds for high-frequency service paying off falling anywhere from 3x daily to 5x daily to 10x daily or more; I suspect the answer is somewhere around 5x daily depending on circumstances and spacing.

So, to put this another way: Would it be nice to serve Columbus and Cleveland from Chicago? Of course. But presuming that for various reasons the schedules have to be spaced so one train offers "daylight" service in Ohio (also a major priority) would it be better to give one city that train, which won't connect to squat in Chicago, and the other city a "workable connection" train (or give one city the "cleanup train" with horrid hours but an almost-always-working connection in CHI and the other a train that might make its connection...or might give you a surprise vacation in the windy city)? I think if you do that, you run a serious risk of getting a "bad train" in the process and doing a great job of giving everyone so-so service, giving nobody good service, and chewing through God's own capital budget in the process of doing so.

 

[neroden]

Economies of scale, as I always say. Until you saturate the market, more trains on the same line is better bang for your buck than a train on each of several different lines.

 

[neroden]

Isn't Ns throwing major money into that line as they have trackage rights to run trains around the bottleneck that is Elkhart

I think that's a different line. NS owns and uses a line which runs Chicago, Argos, Claypool, Ft. Wayne. East of that they go north to Butler or east through Payne.

The proposed HSR route runs Chicago, Plymouth, Warsaw, Ft. Wayne, Woodburn, Toledo.

The only area where the two lines overlap is Ft. Wayne proper.

 

[Seaboard92]

That could be it. I know I read about that. But I would swear it was that like. I know they are trying to eliminate their bottlenecks.

 

[neroden]

It would be really odd if NS was putting money into a line (a) owned by CSX and (b) leased by a shortline, without getting some sort of security on their investment out of the deal.

If they are doing so, I would assume that they're angling to buy the line. Which still makes it a line which could be bought for passenger service, because NS would then have two nearby parallel lines; they'd accept double-tracking of one of them as compensation for the other one, without a doubt.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Hopefully FAST helps out things.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/12/04/feds-lend-ohio-hand-to-get-on-the-train-again/

AAO made it clear, "Linking the existing 110 mph Keystone and Wolverine corridors via Pittsburgh, Youngstown, Akron-area, Cleveland, Toledo and Detroit."

 

[Eric S]

FAST is a decent authorization act as far as passenger rail is concerned, not great but not too bad either. However, it's just that - an authorization, not an appropriation.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

My non-scientific impression is that very few people use the Amtrak Service to get from Chicago to South Bend and vice versa. Most of the South Bend and Elkhart traffic is from/to the east...

...

For the record, South Bend can also be served by the Wolverines at Niles, Mich.

The Notre Dame U. website says 3 miles to Amtrak South Bend, and a little over 9 miles to Amtrak Niles.

With stations very near Wayne State in Detroit, Eastern Michigan when they build the new station at Ypsilanti, Univ of Michigan at Ann Arbor, Michigan State on the Blue Water branch to East Lansing, and Western Michigan U at Kalamazoo, the Wolverines route looks like another contender for the title "Knowledge Corridor". Where Notre Dame in South Bend fits right in.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Hopefully FAST helps out things.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/12/04/feds-lend-ohio-hand-to-get-on-the-train-again/

Nice story on that site about Ohio's Sen. Robert Taft -- a conservative known as "Mr Republican" in his day -- and the creation of the Lake Shore Ltd.

It started with a Ohio-friendly schedule: "The first ... Lake Shore Limited ran Oct. 31, departing Chicago at 2:15 pm, Toledo at 8:50 pm, Cleveland at 11:20 pm, Buffalo at 3:45 am, Albany at 9:25 am, and arriving New York City at 12:15 pm. Westbound, it departed New York City at 6:15 pm, Albany at 9:25 pm, Buffalo at 2:55 am, Cleveland at 7:30 am, Toledo at 10:00 am, and arriving Chicago at 2:40 pm." Well, Buffalo was fresh out of luck, but it sure worked for Cleveland and Toledo. A schedule like this would be a great success, not only in Cleveland.

 

[jis]

Well and as soon as Ohio dropped funding and New York kept on funding guess what happened eventually. I doubt very much that things will change until Ohio bothers to step upto the plate.

 

[Seaboard92]

I like their schedule they had initially and it appears similar to my proposed New York Nightmare train. It could easily work for the three c line too

 

[neroden]

Yes, that initial LSL schedule would be a good schedule for the second frequency from New York to Chicago via Albany. The first frequency needs to go back to the schedule used before the current super-late schedule (departing Chicago around 6 PM).

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I have created .pdf schedules summarizing the following scenarios based off All Aboard Ohio's suggestions (http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf)

Goals:

Direct PHL-CHI train passing through the Keystone Corridor and PGH.

Direct service from Michigan to the NEC via TOL and CLE.

Better hours for TOL and CLE. Also allows for an earlier departure from CHI for a passenger stranded overnight in CHI.

Through cars between CIN, Columbus, and CLE, connecting to a NYP bound train. Also allows CIN passengers to have a daily to the East Coast and at a better time.

At this time, I will assume no track improvements on current routes. I will use mostly current Amtrak schedules and AAO's proposed schedules.

Scenario 1: One New Train

Liberty Limited (40/41): Travels NYP/PHL to CHI via PGH, CLE, TOL, and Michigan.

Thru Cars (440/441): Travels CIN/Columbus to PHL/NYP via CLE and PGH.

Trains split/merge at CLE.

I mainly used AAO's Three Rivers schedule but added the 3-C leg. To account for the split/merge, I pushed the 41 between CLE and CHI back half an hour and pushed the 40 between CLE and NYP back half an hour (this also put the LL into NYP after 9:00am). Train travels overnight between PHL and PGH both ways.

With the LL, there will be three daily trains from CHI to the NEC. All three trains will pass through CLE and TOL. Two will pass through PGH and they will once again have two daily trains to CHI (LL and CL) and two daily trains to PHL/NYP (LL and Pennsylvanian). Two will terminate in NYP. One will pass through Michigan and Pennsylvania.

In this scenario, the LSL and CL schedules would be unchanged.

Scenario 2: Two New Trains

Liberty Limited (40/41): Travels NYP/PHL to CHI via PGH, CLE, TOL, and Michigan.

Lake Cities (46/47): Travels NYP to CHI via Empire Corridor, CLE, TOL, and Michigan.

Thru Cars (446/447): Travels CIN/Columbus to NYP via CLE and Empire Corridor.

Trains split/merge at CLE.

I mainly used AAO's Pennsylvanian extension to give PHL a "regular" schedule as opposed to the one in the one train scenario. I changed the name to Liberty Limited as before. The hope is that PennDOT will have a new Pennsylvanian that travels PGH to NYP on a different schedule than the new LL. The new schedule to give CLE and TOL better hours and hook up to 3-C now goes overnight via the Water Route.

I also shifted schedules. The eastbound LSL will now leave at 6:30pm (3 hr. shift). The LL will now leave at 9:00pm (2 hr shift from AAO's Pennsylvanian). I intend for the CL to leave at 7:40pm (1 hr. shift) to allow for the LSL to leave at 6:30pm although the CL schedule is not listed in my file. I do not propose changing either of the westbound LSL or CL schedules.

With the LL and LC, there will be four daily trains from CHI to the NEC. All four trains will pass through CLE and TOL. Three will terminate in NYP. Two will pass through upstate New York although the LC will travel over it overnight. Two trains will pass through Michigan, the LC (good hours) to upstate New York and the LL (bad hours) to Pennsylvania. I would like to have given the Michigan to PA line better hours but the arrival time into NYP would have been too close to the rush hour. Two will pass through PGH.

Shifting the LSL was suggested in the 2011 PRIIA (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/570/756/2011%20PRIIA%20210%20Report%2009-26-11_final.pdf). It allows an arrival into NYP well before the rush hour. AAO's Pennsylvanian was scheduled to arrive in NYP at 5:43pm which I am guessing would be hard. So the LL won't get into NYP until well after 7pm. This will give NYP three different arrival times, 9:53am, 3:23pm, and 7:43pm. The three departure times out of NYP are staggered as well. The LL will replace the LSL as the "cleanup" train.

I feel that one new train can give all of the benefits I am looking for. But if I could have a second train I could double service from Michigan to the East Coast, allow the 3C route to connect to the Empire Corridor rather than the Keystone Corridor, allow for a PHL-CHI train on a traditional schedule to allow transfers and shift the LSL to arrive in NYP earlier.

While I would love two dailies to CHI, I'm happy with one right now. I'm not sure whether Ohio passengers would rather go to Buffalo/Syracuse/Albany or Pittsburgh/Philadelphia (both routes will eventually lead to New York) so I think that could be flexible as to whether 3-C should be hooked to an Empire Corridor train or a Keystone Corridor train. But AAO's proposal has two Michigan trains heading to the Keystone Corridor and zero Michigan trains heading to the Empire Corridor. Why not give Michigan one train to each corridor? In my scenario, the Empire Corridor would win hands down mainly due to timing.

If in the dream world we could have a third new train, I'd probably consider a Ft. Wayne/Columbus train to the Keystone route. This would give us two CHI-PHL trains. I would run the train via Michigan on the traditional schedule and the train via Columbus on a schedule similar to AAO's Three Rivers so Columbus could be at a good time and not overnight.

I do agree with others that changing the LSL schedule to accommodate 3-C is a bad idea as it probably breaks most major connections in CHI. I think 3-C is better suited for an additional CHI-CLE that serves the cities at a better hour.

Feel free to suggest changes/adjustments and a different name and/or numbers than "Lake Cities" if you think you have a better one. I think 40/41 should be reserved for Philly but I am open to different numbers for the Lake Cities.

Update: HAR's times on the two train scenario Liberty Limited should be 3:38/3:48pm.

Liberty Limited Only Michigan Plus 3C Dec 2015.pdf

Liberty Limited Lake Cities Michigan 3C Earlier LSL Dec 2015.pdf

 

[neroden]

Philly Amtrak Fan -- good scenarios.

My actual most favored scenario includes a Toledo-Detroit-Ann Arbor-(probably Chicago) day train departing westbound at 7 AM and one arriving eastbound at 6 PM, with connections to the LSL (and actually to the CL too). I say "probably Chicago" because Michigan has suggested a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Dearborn line, and it would make the utmost sense to run Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-Toledo. This could be implemented quite quickly compared to any other scheme for serving Michigan-east. I say "probably Chicago" because Michigan is studying a Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Dearborn-(Detroit?) line, and it would make much more sense for this to be the "Toledo connection".

I think we need to look separately at the following markets which are not served well by the current trains:

-- Michigan-upstate NY (day or overnight)

-- Michigan-East Coast (overnight)

-- Philadelphia-Chicago (overnight)

-- Cleveland-East Coast (overnight)

-- Cleveland-upstate NY (day or overnight)

-- Cleveland-Michgan (day)

-- Cleveland-Toledo (day)

-- Cleveland-Chicago (day or overnight)

-- Cleveland-Pittsburgh

-- Pittsburgh-Chicago (day or overnight)

-- Philadelphia-Pittsburgh (day or overnight)

Yes, I'm ignoring Indiana, because the existing route doesn't stop in any cities worth mentioning east of Elkhart, and Niles is close enough to Elkhart and South Bend. The only reason to take the current route rather than the Michigan route is that it's shorter. Indiana won't be relevant unless the Fort Wayne route is expensively rebuilt.

I'm also ignoring "cleanup trains" because there should be enough service.

The ideal scheme for quick implementation would satisfy all of these with a minimum number of trains running on freight-owned track, and could be implemented in stages.

-- My "Toledo connection" satsifies Michigan-upstate NY and Michigan-East Coast.

-- Your Lake Cities (Chicago-Michigan-Cleveland-NY) satisfies Cleveland-Upstate NY, Cleveland-East Coast, Cleveland-Michigan, Cleveland-Toledo, Cleveland-Chicago. It doesn't really matter which route it takes east of Cleveland, since the calling hours will be awful.

-- The Pennsyvlanian/Capitol Limited through cars would satsify Philaldephia-Chicago.

-- The existing Pennsylvanian satisfies Pittsburgh-Philadelphia, though more frequencies would be better.

-- I see no rational way to satisfy Cleveland-upstate NY.

This raises the question of how best to accomodate Pittsburgh-Chicago.

This causes me to do a redesign. Lose Cleveland-Upstate NY to gain Cleveland-Pittsburgh and Pittsburgh-Chicago. (And being from upstate NY, I don't say this lightly!) This design has a staging order of priority:

1 -- Do the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited through cars advised in the PIP, but more thoroughly. Reverse the priority so that the main train is the Broadway Limited (renamed Pennsylvanian) and the Capitol Limited provides through cars. This should run on your "Liberty Limited" schedule, but history makes me want to call it the Broadway Limited.

2 -- Do the LSL eastbound schedule change advised in the PIP, recovering plausible Toledo-Upstate NY service

3 -- Add the "Toledo connection" which I described above.

4 -- Run a train in the daytime from Chicago via Michigan to Pittsburgh, then overnight to Philadelphia and New York. For historical reasons, instead of calling it the Lake Cities... call it the Manhattan Limited. This would have to have an early morning departure from Chicago and a late evening arrival in Chicago. *This would become the "cleanup train"*; people would be put up overnight in Chicago, but could leave in the morning. The rationale here is to serve Pittsburgh. The eastbound would have to run 30 minutes later than your Lake Cities Limited; the westbound would have to run about 4 hours earlier.

5 -- Eventually, extend an Empire Service frequency to Cleveland to regain Cleveland-upstate NY service.

Rolling stock requirements:

-- Rolling stock needed for the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited through cars

-- Single level rolling stock for the Capitol Limited (I'm sure the bilevels can find valuable uses elsewhere)

-- Corridor bilevels for the Toledo Connection... but probably no more than Michigan is already buying for service to Detroit; just shift one trip to Toledo

-- A full three trainsets for the Manhattan Limited. This train primarily serves Ohio, but also serves Michigan and Pittsburgh, so those three states might consider funding. It would provide exceptionally useful service to Ohio, so it's best left until Ohio has a sane government. :-(

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I may have to revise later, but for now a temporary three train scenario.

The first two trains are the same as before.

The third train is the Buckeye Limited (31/32) traveling from CHI to NYP via Ft. Wayne, Columbus, Pittsburgh, and Philadelphia.

In addition to giving Ft. Wayne service and Columbus/PGH service, the goal is to allow for a connection in Columbus for those taking the 3-C branch of the Lake Cities train from Cincinnati (they can do CIN-Columbus-PGH). The problem is with the current arrival/departure times into Columbus on the Lake Cities (12:05pm to CIN, 6:00pn from CIN) the arrival/departure times in PGH are horrible (5:05/5:20am west and 1:30/1:45am east) although the CL does serve PGH pretty close to the 5:05am/5:20am times. Perhaps the Lake Cities times will have to be adjusted.

I want to avoid too many New York themed names as the primary markets for the "Lake Cities" should be Michigan and Ohio and the primary markets for the "Buckeye Limited" should be Ft. Wayne and Columbus. Maybe the names aren't as important but I certainly want names that the primary markets will identify with.

I hope to look at your suggestions later on Nate.

Buckeye Limited Dec 2015.pdf

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Nate,

While I would love the CL/Pennsylvanian connection compared to the present situation, I would prefer two separate trains. I fear that in a split/merge situation that Philly/eastern PA will be the second class citizens of the train like Boston/Massachusetts is of the LSL. If I could, I'd split the LSL into two separate trains, one to NYP and one to BOS. I don't think Amtrak will ever put the Broadway ahead of the Capitol as you suggested, if the connection is made the CL will always be first and the "BL" will be second. I mean they essentially cancelled the BL twice. I have a feeling it will always be "the we can have it if we can afford it but if we run out of money it's the first train gone" train.

The other thing I might wonder is would it be better to have two trains. Back after they cancelled the BL in 1995, they tried CL/TR through cars but shortly separated them. I'm not too familiar with switching operations but I am wondering if it would be easier to just have two separate trains as was the case after around 1997.

I guess if you just combine the CL and Pennsylvanian, you essentially have my Liberty Limited which means you can save yourself a train. But you couldn't then run the CL through Michigan then (or if you did reroute the CL through Michigan and lose a train going through South Bend). I don't think it hurts Michigan that much since Michigan would have the Lake Cities to go to NYP and the Liberty Limited serves Michigan late at night anyway going east.

Another scenario I could run:

1) Liberty Limited NYP-CHI via Keystone, Columbus, and Ft. Wayne on the "regular schedule".

2) Liberty Limited 2 NYP-CHI via Keystone, Michigan on the overnight schedule between PGH and PHL (use my one train scenario for schedules).

3) Lake Cities same as before.

I could have 3-C as through cars to the Liberty Limited 2 but allow a connection in CLE to the Lake Cities (the schedules as is would require this format as opposed to the other). This would allow CIN, Dayton, and Columbus to go to both the Water Route and the Keystone Route although going through the Water Route would require a connection. Then CIN-Columbus-PGH would require you to go up to CLE first since if Liberty Limited 1 would go through Columbus it won't be at great times.

As for PGH to CHI, I'd probably look for a departure before 11pm going west or an arrival after 7am going east as decent. The CL leaves PGH close to midnight and arrives well before 7am now. If I run overnight from PGH-PHL, I'd have to have the train leave PGH after midnight going east to make sure it arrives in NYP after 9am (if I get it into NYP before the rush hour it gets into PHL well before 7am). I think my regular LL schedule (2 train scenario or 3 train scenario) works well for CHI-PGH (8:05pm to 7:25am west, 9:00pm to 10:00am east). Going through Michigan adds times as compared to the CL through Indiana but the extra time does allow for "better" times for PGH. The PGH-CLE times aren't great but better than the current CL times (8:05pm to 11:05pm west, 7am to 10am east).

As for your Toledo connection, AAO's trains are not proposed to serve downtown Detroit. I am using their routing/schedule for any of my trains going via Michigan (Liberty Limited, Lake Cities). If there's anything different, I'd have to know the routing and/or a sample schedule.

Any other questions/comments you have please feel free to ask/say.

 

[Eric S]

If (if, if, if, if, IF) the Capitol Limited (or whatever name you'd like) is split/joined at Pittsburgh, with a New York section and a Washington section, and it is changed over to single-level equipment, then I imagine it would be treated just like the Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited are - with the higher ridership section having a dining car and the lower ridership section having a cafe car.

(Obviously major changes to Amtrak's overall LD food service would impact this - just assuming the status quo.)

If ridership levels, equipment availability, track capacity, and cost recovery factors permit the operation of two trains, great. If not, one train that splits/joins is better than no train.

 

[Seaboard92]

Philly, what market are you after. Detouring to Columbus would probably add an hour or two maybe more to the Chicago east coast market. Which I assume you are aiming at. But it would be a strong intermediate market. I'm concerned with the shortlines one has to run on to go directly to Columbus. One could run on the ex PRR main to Crestline then down the three C ex NYC line then back up to the ex PRR main line. But that might add more time. I would have to run the schedule in my head

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Philly, what market are you after. Detouring to Columbus would probably add an hour or two maybe more to the Chicago east coast market. Which I assume you are aiming at. But it would be a strong intermediate market. I'm concerned with the shortlines one has to run on to go directly to Columbus. One could run on the ex PRR main to Crestline then down the three C ex NYC line then back up to the ex PRR main line. But that might add more time. I would have to run the schedule in my head

Essentially with the two previous trains, it would be Ft. Wayne and Columbus east-west (Columbus is served N-S by my proposed 3-C through cars). I am essentially using AAO's proposal #5 (a new Broadway Limited) so they would be the ones to ask about routes/schedules.

As a third train, you don't gain much except Ft.Wayne/Columbus east-west and the connection from CIN and Dayton to Columbus to get to PGH and the Keystone route without going all the way north to CLE. Do you gain much with the third train then? Probably not, especially since Amtrak currently does not travel along the route. I feel 3-C and the Toledo/Dearborn connection are more valuable.

You could also reroute my Liberty Limited via Ft. Wayne Columbus instead of via Michigan if you have the Lake Cities going through Michigan. That would give you Ft. Wayne and Columbus service while keeping it to two trains. The current schedule for my Liberty Limited serves Michigan during the graveyard shift so if they have the Lake Cities it won't be too big a loss. So assuming two new trains, you can do both the Liberty Limited and Lake Cities via Michigan or the Liberty Limited via Ft. Wayne/Columbus and the Lake Cities via Michigan (with through cars between CLE and CIN).

 

[neroden]

If (if, if, if, if, IF) the Capitol Limited (or whatever name you'd like) is split/joined at Pittsburgh, with a New York section and a Washington section, and it is changed over to single-level equipment, then I imagine it would be treated just like the Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited are - with the higher ridership section having a dining car and the lower ridership section having a cafe car.

Remember, the Lake Shore Limited started out as a Boston train with a New York section. That changed when it became clear which side had more riders.

I still predict that NYP-PHL-PIT-CHI will have more riders than WAS-PIT-CHI, especially since the WAS-PIT route *sucks*. It's beautiful but it's damned slow.

The previous incarnations of Amtrak's Broadway Limited and Three Rivers all suffered badly from their routings west of Pittsburgh. The original Pennsy routing via Fort Wayne ended up being too slow when Conrail refused to maintain the line. The replacement B&O routing had no significant cities west of Akron, and was too slow to start with. Neither route made it to Cleveland or Toledo; and both routes were too far south for any passengers from Michigan. The Three Rivers suffered further from having no sleepers on an overnight trip for most of its existence, but the primary problem was the route.

I am firmly in favor of any re-established route running Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, *not* on either of the old routes.

From Pittsburgh to Cleveland, I'm route-agnostic. Alliance is a poor station location, but NS is a good host and the route is direct.

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Akron-Cleveland would take longer, and require rehabilitating the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and additional trackwork in Cleveland, and involve CSX, but would have *great* station locations.

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Cleveland would be a lot simpler, and it would have good station locations, but it involves messing around with CSX and a track connection at Ravenna.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

If (if, if, if, if, IF) the Capitol Limited (or whatever name you'd like) is split/joined at Pittsburgh, with a New York section and a Washington section, and it is changed over to single-level equipment, then I imagine it would be treated just like the Empire Builder and Lake Shore Limited are - with the higher ridership section having a dining car and the lower ridership section having a cafe car.

Remember, the Lake Shore Limited started out as a Boston train with a New York section. That changed when it became clear which side had more riders.

I still predict that NYP-PHL-PIT-CHI will have more riders than WAS-PIT-CHI, especially since the WAS-PIT route *sucks*. It's beautiful but it's damned slow.

The previous incarnations of Amtrak's Broadway Limited and Three Rivers all suffered badly from their routings west of Pittsburgh. The original Pennsy routing via Fort Wayne ended up being too slow when Conrail refused to maintain the line. The replacement B&O routing had no significant cities west of Akron, and was too slow to start with. Neither route made it to Cleveland or Toledo; and both routes were too far south for any passengers from Michigan. The Three Rivers suffered further from having no sleepers on an overnight trip for most of its existence, but the primary problem was the route.

I am firmly in favor of any re-established route running Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, *not* on either of the old routes.

From Pittsburgh to Cleveland, I'm route-agnostic. Alliance is a poor station location, but NS is a good host and the route is direct.

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Akron-Cleveland would take longer, and require rehabilitating the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad and additional trackwork in Cleveland, and involve CSX, but would have *great* station locations.

Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Ravenna-Cleveland would be a lot simpler, and it would have good station locations, but it involves messing around with CSX and a track connection at Ravenna.

Well the last NARP data I had from 2004 (I have posted the file before and will post it again if anyone wants it) while the Three Rivers was still running the CL still had more passengers than the TR although it wasn't that much different (176,333 to 149,562). CLE and TOL did help the CL although those cities were served by the CL overnight. I think Amtrak certainly favored the CL route as they gave them Cleveland and Toronto while sticking the BL on the other route. Also, I believe the TR never had a diner car so it was comparable to the Star vs. Meteor now. I do not have data comparing the ridership between the CL to the BL in the early 90's before they cancelled the BL.

The data do however show that more passengers used the TR from CHI to PGH than the CL at the time (7.9% of TR vs. 3.0% of CL). It makes sense since the TR left PGH earlier and arrived later (2004 timetables.org: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20040426&item=0071). I don't remember a 10:30pm eastern departure from CHI when I took it. That was late. I believe I last took the TR in January 2002 and it was 9:20pm (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20011028n&item=0028)

If they go to the split at PGH, I imagine the "New York" leg will be Eastern PA including Philly and New Jersey (I would say NYP passengers probably would take the LSL first and only use the CL/Pennsylvanian if either it's cheaper or if the LSL is sold out) and the Washington leg will be Washington, Baltimore, and passengers transferring south to the Crescent, Silver Meteor, or other services. Which leg would be more popular? Only way to find out is to do it. I would love to have the situation like the LSL where the Philly leg is the main leg and the Washington leg is the through cars (or even the other way around would be better than the transfer now).

I still think two separate trains would be better. I don't know how troublesome the split/merge is for Amtrak (they do it in Albany and Spokane all the time but the Albany one now is really troublesome). The CL in 2014 had 232,228 passengers, an increase of about 31.7% from 2004. The LSL had 272,203 passengers in 2004 and 367,195 in 2014, an increase of about 34.9%. If the TR in 2014 had even a 25% increase in passengers compared to 2004, it would've had over 185,000 passengers. With the right routing and services, 200,000 passengers a year today would be a reasonable goal for a new TR/BL. I believe HAR-NYP wasn't electrified until after the TR was cancelled. Maybe the extra hour savings from the old TR over that route could make the travel time between CHI and NYP closer to the LSL time and make the BL competitive with the LSL for NYP-CHI traffic. At the very least, passengers could take the BL when the LSL sells out.

 

[Eric S]

The route east of HAR has been electrified since the 1930s. Amtrak has typically switched locomotives for the longer-distance trains (BL/TR/Pennsy) at PHL.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The route east of HAR has been electrified since the 1930s. Amtrak has typically switched locomotives for the longer-distance trains (BL/TR/Pennsy) at PHL.

But high speed came in 2006, ironically the year after the TR was cancelled.

http://nec.amtrak.com/content/keystone-corridor

 

[jis]

We are still waiting for 125mph on the Keystone Corridor. It is really not terribly suitable for too much of higher speed operation given the profile of the route.