92 To 29 Connection - 2019

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
2,020
Location
CYN
I know this has been discussed before, but currently 92 is scheduled to arrive in Washington at 2.38 p.m. and 29 is scheduled to depart at 4.05 p.m. I think that a minimum of 2 hours is required for a scheduled connect, but this is only lacking 33 minutes. Wouldn't it be worth it to Amtrak to shift the schedules slightly so that they could connect.

In the future we are planning a trip from Cary, NC, to Chicago and are having to drive to Washington, D.C., to catch 29 because there is no scheduled connection. And we're not going to take a chance that the trains will actually make the unscheduled connection.

jb
 
It would be great if the scheduled could be adjusted to make that connection, as I frequently travel between Chicago and Raleigh. However, there are some obstacles to that occuring. In the opposite direction, the connection is exactly two hours and guaranteed, but still frequently missed. In that case, most passengers can be accommodated on 97 if the connection is missed, but there is no alternative if 29 were to be missed. In addition, 92 has a longer route and is more likely to be delayed than 30. My point is that scheduling a two hour connection may still not be enough unless OTP is improved.
 
I'm sure that the schedule of #29 is constrained by commuter rush hour timing at WAS and CHI in the morning. An hour later at PGH would not be appreciated by those getting off or boarding there, although CLE and TOL passengers might be happier. Then throw in an hour later scheduled arrival in Chicago, for example, jeopardizes connecting to some western trains if the inbound #29 is 2-3 hours late. It also reduces the turnaround time in CHI by an hour as well.

The problem with todays existing Amtrak LD one train a day network, there's little to no way to handle connections when an LD train is more than a couple hours late. And given the realities of todays' freight RR handling of Amtrak trains, being an hour or so late is the norm.
 
I'm sure that the schedule of #29 is constrained by commuter rush hour timing at WAS and CHI in the morning. An hour later at PGH would not be appreciated by those getting off or boarding there, although CLE and TOL passengers might be happier. Then throw in an hour later scheduled arrival in Chicago, for example, jeopardizes connecting to some western trains if the inbound #29 is 2-3 hours late. It also reduces the turnaround time in CHI by an hour as well.

The problem with todays existing Amtrak LD one train a day network, there's little to no way to handle connections when an LD train is more than a couple hours late. And given the realities of todays' freight RR handling of Amtrak trains, being an hour or so late is the norm.
It would probably make more sense to make 92 earlier than 29 later as there aren't any major cities early in the morning that would be severely negatively impacted, whereas Pittsburgh would be pushed well past midnight if the schedule of 29 was modified. The main negative impact of such a change is that it would push the arrival into NYP closer to the middle of rush hour.
 
It would probably make more sense to make 92 earlier than 29 later as there aren't any major cities early in the morning that would be severely negatively impacted, whereas Pittsburgh would be pushed well past midnight if the schedule of 29 was modified. The main negative impact of such a change is that it would push the arrival into NYP closer to the middle of rush hour.

Totally agree, I'd adjust 92's schedule to be earlier, over making 29 later. When I rode 29 west from PGH in 2018, it was so late that it didn't arrive till around 2:15am! Sigh.
 
There is no winning solution to it.

If you move 92 earlier you are coming into Penn Station at the peak of Rush Hour. That’s a non starter right now. Now after Gateway that might be possible when there is more capacity available. Even though Gateway won’t solve the East River Tunnels with the LIRR.

Moving the Capitol later would really mess with Pittsburgh. And you would bump into the Lake Shore Limited’s skit from Cleveland to Chicago. Now if you swapped them around it would improve times in Buffalo.

There is no way to improve it. Even after the SEHSR on the S line is operational wont change it.
 
Moving the Star earlier will work - just so it gets to Washington early enough to connect with 29. Then delay 92's departure time by enough so that it doesn't get to NYP too early. From what I've seen, engine changes take place at a rather leisurely pace anyway. And with a little longer layover, people could run up into the station to visit the food court, somewhat offsetting the complaints about the lack of a diner.

jb
 
There is only a 6 hour departure difference as it is between 98 and 92 in JAX.

Changing 92 to an earlier time may cause problems from Savannah south ... so, I doubt that would work either
 
And with a little longer layover, people could run up into the station to visit the food court, somewhat offsetting the complaints about the lack of a diner.
jb

Don't even THINK that!

This past January, I was on #97 already a couple hours late at WAS due to frozen doors at Sunnyside (so they claimed), and we were delayed departing WAS an extra 10 minutes while waiting for someone to reboard that had gotten off to go to the food court to get something to eat. And THAT was after a 10 minute delay getting permission to proceed without PTC because of problems switching over to CSX.

Sometimes knowing why we're spending more time than usual at some station makes me think I would be happier if I had my scanner turned off.
 
Don't even THINK that!

This past January, I was on #97 already a couple hours late at WAS due to frozen doors at Sunnyside (so they claimed), and we were delayed departing WAS an extra 10 minutes while waiting for someone to reboard that had gotten off to go to the food court to get something to eat. And THAT was after a 10 minute delay getting permission to proceed without PTC because of problems switching over to CSX.

Sometimes knowing why we're spending more time than usual at some station makes me think I would be happier if I had my scanner turned off.

I'm surprised the train #97 you were on, waited an extra 10 minutes for that one passenger to reboard. I would ALWAYS assume for sure that the train would leave, at the scheduled departure time mentioned in the schedule. Or that however long the train will dwell at the station for per Amtrak employee instructions stating clearly by the crew(IF the train is running late), is all the time one will have at a smoke/stretch stop station.

I guess maybe it's just me, but looking at 92's schedule, it wouldn't bug me that much if the departure times were moved up 35-40 minutes. Of course, you never know if say CSX or other freight railroads 92 goes through, would have a problem with the northbound Star schedule being moved earlier that much. And I like the suggested idea of 92 doing a longer layover in DC, if that'd resolve any worries about that train arriving too early into NYC.
 
Back
Top