Jump to content
Guest wannacruise

Amtrak : Best Kept Secrets

Recommended Posts

Here's the answer to having to walk through 6 coaches to the diner: establish trains 38 and 39 as separate trains between Boston and Chicago. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's the answer to having to walk through 6 coaches to the diner: establish trains 38 and 39 as separate trains between Boston and Chicago. :)

Wait, I'm confused. Do you mean 48/49 or 448/449? And does it mean for the eastbound and the westbound to be established as separate trains? How could that possibly not be the case? Sorry if this is really obvious.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CHI-BOS train were completely separate from the CHI-NYP train, the 448/449 numbers wouldn't make any sense. 38/39 would be logical numbers for the new train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CHI-BOS train were completely separate from the CHI-NYP train, the 448/449 numbers wouldn't make any sense. 38/39 would be logical numbers for the new train.

Oh, thanks. I thought that was just a typo. So he was suggesting that the LSL becomes an NYP-CHI train and a separate BOS-CHI train? I don't see why that would at all be necessary. The Boston section of the LSL currently only needs two coaches, a business/cafe, and one sleeper for passenger use. I just don't think the demand is at all there to warrant a separate train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A separate train between Boston and Chicago, running on a different schedule about 8 hours away from 48/49, could give places on the route that currently don't have good calling times than what 48/49 and 29/30 provide. Read Western New York and Ohio. The scheduling gurus on here could work something out, I'm sure. I'm not considering other logistics such as equipment availability, obviously. At one point in the Warrington regime, this was actually being talked about, if I'm not mistaken.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the CHI-BOS train were completely separate from the CHI-NYP train, the 448/449 numbers wouldn't make any sense. 38/39 would be logical numbers for the new train.

Correct, unless Amtrak continued its current scenario, which would give Boston 2 trains a day to and from Western points, running about 8 hours apart.

Edited by Palmetto

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Amtrak will just keep the current scenario minus any additional train

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From experience . . . avoid at all costs the seats in the middle of a Superliner coach. You will not get much sleep as passengers clop up and down the stairs and bang and lock and unlock the bathroom doors all night long. It is very very noisy there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A separate train between Boston and Chicago, running on a different schedule about 8 hours away from 48/49, could give places on the route that currently don't have good calling times than what 48/49 and 29/30 provide. Read Western New York and Ohio. The scheduling gurus on here could work something out, I'm sure. I'm not considering other logistics such as equipment availability, obviously. At one point in the Warrington regime, this was actually being talked about, if I'm not mistaken.

Not relevant to this topic, but I would like to see two separate trains and have one go through Canada via Detroit. Not only would that create a better-served important city-pair (NYP-DET), but it would be much faster (lots of higher speed trackage) and avoid all of the freight congestion south of Lake Erie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A separate train between Boston and Chicago, running on a different schedule about 8 hours away from 48/49, could give places on the route that currently don't have good calling times than what 48/49 and 29/30 provide. Read Western New York and Ohio. The scheduling gurus on here could work something out, I'm sure. I'm not considering other logistics such as equipment availability, obviously. At one point in the Warrington regime, this was actually being talked about, if I'm not mistaken.

 

I've made a couple of variations of this:

 

I actually think both trains should run to New York City, due to the immense ridership demand from there; only one should run to Boston. If scheduled right, you can set up one of the trains to run overnight from NYC to Syracuse, which would be highly attractive for day trips to NYC.

Edited by neroden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×