Capitol with Through Cars vs. Extended Pennsylvanian

[TVRM610]

So i was reading the Capitol Limited Performance Plan and was reading how Amtrak wants to operate through cars from Pittsburgh that connect the Capitol to the Pennsylvanian. I just have to wonder, does it not make more sense to extend the Pennsylvanian to Chicago? Anyone have any thoughts on why one makes more sense than the other?

I really think there needs to be a train that hits the large cities of Ohio at better hours anyways, the Pennsylvanian used to do just that. It seems like a no brainer to me, but I do realize it would take extra crew. It just seems to me that if Amtrak is sure they would attract so many extra riders who want a "one seat ride" on that route, they could attract those riders, plus riders who want better times in Ohio. Seems like a sure fire win to me. But maybe I'm missing something big?

 

[the_traveler]

I believe the tracks on the old route were removed. (At least some of them.) And if it used the current CL route, there would be 2 trains between PGH and CLE within a short time, and 3 trains between CLE and CHI within a short time!

 

[Gratt]

How exactly would an extended Penny be any different from the Three Rivers?

Not that I am against extending it I am just wondering

 

[transit54]

I really think there needs to be a train that hits the large cities of Ohio at better hours anyways, the Pennsylvanian used to do just that. It seems like a no brainer to me, but I do realize it would take extra crew. It just seems to me that if Amtrak is sure they would attract so many extra riders who want a "one seat ride" on that route, they could attract those riders, plus riders who want better times in Ohio. Seems like a sure fire win to me. But maybe I'm missing something big?

At the present moment, Amtrak does not have a substantial amount of funding to devote towards running another federally funded LD train and the leadership of Ohio is clearly rail-averse. I don't think Amtrak would have any desire to run additional trains through the State after the governor of the state has openly attacked them. The feds put forth a plan to implement a train that did service the large cities of Ohio at decent times, and the individual that Ohio voters elected as governor profoundly rejected the opportunity for such service. I think Amtrak is focusing their efforts on states or regions where they are given political support.

 

[TVRM610]

How exactly would an extended Penny be any different from the Three Rivers?

Not that I am against extending it I am just wondering

It wouldn't, in this case.

 

[jis]

So i was reading the Capitol Limited Performance Plan and was reading how Amtrak wants to operate through cars from Pittsburgh that connect the Capitol to the Pennsylvanian. I just have to wonder, does it not make more sense to extend the Pennsylvanian to Chicago? Anyone have any thoughts on why one makes more sense than the other?

I really think there needs to be a train that hits the large cities of Ohio at better hours anyways, the Pennsylvanian used to do just that. It seems like a no brainer to me, but I do realize it would take extra crew. It just seems to me that if Amtrak is sure they would attract so many extra riders who want a "one seat ride" on that route, they could attract those riders, plus riders who want better times in Ohio. Seems like a sure fire win to me. But maybe I'm missing something big?

The additional cost of a separate train vs. adding a few cars to an existing train would be:

1. Additional locomotives and crew for them.

2. Additional Conductors

3. Additional trackage charges

4. Additional Baggage Car

If no more passenger carrying cars are conveyed by the new separate train than the cars transferred to the Cap, then these would all be additional costs that would need to be covered with essentially the same revenue stream - well maybe a bit more revenue if a few more people travel due to different timing. Apparently Amtrak believes that they will not have the additional equipment beyond what they plan to use for the transferred cars, and if that is the case, then all the additional cost is just additional cost for no additional revenue.

So a separate train would appear to be a less optimal solution given those assumptions.

As for schedules, there is no intention as far as I can tell, to add a national network train to Chicago that will not connect to/from the western trains, unless the states involved chip in to make it a non-national network train and then they can dictate the schedule. And it being the case that neither Ohio nor Indiana appear to be in the mood to fund anything for passenger railroad at present, the schedule won't be that different from what we have now, even if there were a separate national network train.

Considering that even New York State will get hit by PRIIA 209 charges for the trains that operate purely within New York State, I don't see that position changing any for Ohio or Indiana. Afterall New York is way more Amtrak friendly than either Ohio or Indiana.

 

[BuzzKillington]

I'd be all for a connected CL - Pennsylvanian route from CHI to NYP, if it wasn't for that 2-4 hour wait in Pittsburgh. Without that, it would definitely be a better choice than the late leaving LSL from Chicago. Since it will actually take more time from CHI to NYP, I don't think the ridership would be there.

 

[railiner]

I think that if cost wasn't the only consideration, I would like to see a separate New York-Pittsburgh-Chicago train. I don't see why an additional train has to make connections with all the Western trains. Or have to wait for them, eastbound. Running a train on-time out of Chicago would make Amtrak service more attractive to those who desire dependability. Perhaps, it would generate enough additional patronage to defray losing a few connections, especially if there are alternatives available. It's too bad Amtrak doesn't have the resources to operate additional frequencies on long-haul routes, so that a segments schedules could be optimized for the segment, and not have to fit into a nationwide connectivity puzzle...

 

[jis]

The other thing to remember regarding the matter of New York section proposal for the Cap is that it is a proposal for enhancing revenues for the Cap for minimal additional cost. Of course if it is a separate train it won't be enhancing Cap revenues, but will be a completely different train, and of necessity costs will be significantly higher. So in principle a different train discussion has to happen in a context that is different from the one in which the new section for Cap has taken place so far within Amtrak.

I did pose the separate train question to the guy at Amtrak who owns these projects (in a side conversation at one of the meetings he was at), and he said that they are not convinced that they could justify a separate train in the context of the Cap, given their resource limitations, and issues of getting permission from NS and CSX to add another train on their busy line at this time, for the price that they are willing to pay.

As you know in the 2010 round it was the Cap and the Card that were studied. in 2011, one of the train under study will be the LSL, and in that context they might come to a different conclusion regarding overall revenue enhancement and costs for the CHI - NYP/BOS service. We will just have to wait and see what that report says. Generally it seemed that they believe they will most likely have to pay more for additional trains than those that are sort of grandfathered in. But then again I will be the first one to say that I don't know the nature or details of any discussions that Amtrak may or may not have had with CSX/NS regarding that matter. But either way, trackage charge will be a major factor in such decisions.

 

[TVRM610]

The additional cost of a separate train vs. adding a few cars to an existing train would be:

1. Additional locomotives and crew for them.

2. Additional Conductors

3. Additional trackage charges

4. Additional Baggage Car

If no more passenger carrying cars are conveyed by the new separate train than the cars transferred to the Cap, then these would all be additional costs that would need to be covered with essentially the same revenue stream - well maybe a bit more revenue if a few more people travel due to different timing. Apparently Amtrak believes that they will not have the additional equipment beyond what they plan to use for the transferred cars, and if that is the case, then all the additional cost is just additional cost for no additional revenue.

So a separate train would appear to be a less optimal solution given those assumptions.

As for schedules, there is no intention as far as I can tell, to add a national network train to Chicago that will not connect to/from the western trains, unless the states involved chip in to make it a non-national network train and then they can dictate the schedule. And it being the case that neither Ohio nor Indiana appear to be in the mood to fund anything for passenger railroad at present, the schedule won't be that different from what we have now, even if there were a separate national network train.

Considering that even New York State will get hit by PRIIA 209 charges for the trains that operate purely within New York State, I don't see that position changing any for Ohio or Indiana. Afterall New York is way more Amtrak friendly than either Ohio or Indiana.

1. - One Additional Locomotive. The Pennsylvanian already uses one locomotive per train set. A shorter train would only need one locomotive. Yes to extra crew.

2. - Yes additional Conductors.

3. - Yes additional Track Charges. In fact, NS could require additional infrastructure if they wanted, and that could make the concept VERY cost prohibitive.

4. - Baggage Cars are not a requirement.

The current Pennsylvanian Train Set would run the route, plus one sleeper. The "through" plan already calls for an additional Cafe car, and an additional 2 Amfleet II Coaches. So in order to just make a third train set, the additional cars needed would be one Business Class Car, one Amfleet I Coach, and One Amfleet II Coach. (This combined with the already proposed 2 Amfleet II Coaches and 1 Cafe Car creates a full Pennsylvanian Train Set).

Of course.. I realize this is all just talk since Amtrak is going to do what they want and what makes the most sense to them. I just wish the Pennsylvanian could become a real LD train.

 

[TVRM610]

Generally it seemed that they believe they will most likely have to pay more for additional trains than those that are sort of grandfathered in. But then again I will be the first one to say that I don't know the nature or details of any discussions that Amtrak may or may not have had with CSX/NS regarding that matter. But either way, trackage charge will be a major factor in such decisions.

And that makes sense. I was typing my above essay when you were posting this. Ha. I'm sure that trackage charges would play the biggest role. And that's if NS and CSX even want to cooperate at all!

 

[AlanB]

How exactly would an extended Penny be any different from the Three Rivers?

Not that I am against extending it I am just wondering

It wouldn't, in this case.

Actually, at least assuming that an extended Pennsy follows the route it used to follow several years ago, its route would be vastly different west of Pittsburgh from the route followed by the Three Rivers. The 3R's followed a much more southerly route through Ohio taking it through Youngstown, Akron, Fostoria, and then Nappanee, IN before joining up with the route currently used by the Capitol and the LSL and formerly the Pennsy.

East of Pittsburgh the route is the same.

 

[TVRM610]

How exactly would an extended Penny be any different from the Three Rivers?

Not that I am against extending it I am just wondering

It wouldn't, in this case.

Actually, at least assuming that an extended Pennsy follows the route it used to follow several years ago, its route would be vastly different west of Pittsburgh from the route followed by the Three Rivers. The 3R's followed a much more southerly route through Ohio taking it through Youngstown, Akron, Fostoria, and then Nappanee, IN before joining up with the route currently used by the Capitol and the LSL and formerly the Pennsy.

East of Pittsburgh the route is the same.

Oh ok.. had to do some research. To be clear, I was suggesting an extension of the Pennsylvanian over the same route of the current Capitol West of Pittsburgh. This is my understanding of how the Pennsylvanian ran.

 

[jis]

The history of the route across Ohio/Indiana for PGH - CHI trains in the Amtrak era is interesting.

The Broadway Limited and for a while the Washington DC section of it, and eventually a separate Capitol Limited ran on the ex-PRR Fort Wayne Line until Conrail decided to downgrade that line.

Then the Broadway Limited was moved to run on CSX (B&O) through Youngstown, Akron, Nappanee, while the separate Capitol Limited was set to run via Alliance, Cleveland, Toledo. This ended service to Canton, Crestline, Lima and Fort Wayne.

Broadway was axed sometime in the mid 90s. With the advent of Warrington the Broadway was sort of resurrected as a rag tag circus of a train without a sleeper and named Three Rivers, over the CSX route. Eventually Three Rivers even got a Heritage sleeper

Then Warrington started dreaming of running a freight railroad with a few passenger cars tacked on, and there is at least one Amtrak schedule, which in addition to Three Rivers shows a Pennsylvanian to Chicago which actually did run for about four years (?) (via Cleveland) and another ghost train called the Skyline Connection (via Cleveland), which never ran. It was even allegedly going to have a Heritage Sleeper! Pennsylvanian never had a Sleeper AFAICT. Also no right minded person who was not an ardent railfan would have taken the Pennsylvanian to travel from Philly to Chicago, it was timed such. OTOH it was great for someone to get from say Pittsburgh to Toledo. The Three Rivers had the same train number (40/41) as the Broadway Limited under Amtrak.

And then Warrington's house of cards came crashing down over a period of a couple of years. Pennsylvanian was cut back to Pittsburgh first, and there was brief talk of getting rid of it completely. The Three Rivers was also gone by 2005, thus ending service to Youngstown and Akron. And the only daily train left standing between Pittsburgh and Chicago was the Capitol Ltd.

And so here we are where we are.

 

[PRR 60]

The history of the route across Ohio/Indiana for PGH - CHI trains in the Amtrak era is interesting.

The Broadway Limited and for a while the Washington DC section of it, and eventually a separate Capitol Limited ran on the ex-PRR Fort Wayne Line until Conrail decided to downgrade that line.

Then the Broadway Limited was moved to run on CSX (B&O) through Youngstown, Akron, Nappanee, while the separate Capitol Limited was set to run via Alliance, Cleveland, Toledo. This ended service to Canton, Crestline, Lima and Fort Wayne.

Then came Gunn and in a spiteful moment he axed the Broadway. With the advent of Warrington the Broadway was sort of resurrected as a rag tag circus of a train without a sleeper and named Three Rivers, over the CSX route. Eventually Three Rivers even got a Heritage sleeper

Then Warrington started dreaming of running a freight railroad with a few passenger cars tacked on, and there is at least one Amtrak schedule, which in addition to Three Rivers shows a Pennsylvanian to Chicago which actually did run for about four years (?) (via Cleveland) and another ghost train called the Skyline Connection (via Cleveland), which never ran. It was even allegedly going to have a Heritage Sleeper! Pennsylvanian never had a Sleeper AFAICT. Also no right minded person who was not an ardent railfan would have taken the Pennsylvanian to travel from Philly to Chicago, it was timed such. OTOH it was great for someone to get from say Pittsburgh to Toledo. The Three Rivers had the same train number (40/41) as the Broadway Limited under Amtrak.

And then Warrington's house of cards came crashing down over a period of a couple of years. Pennsylvanian was cut back to Pittsburgh first, and there was brief talk of getting rid of it completely. The Three Rivers was also gone by 2005, thus ending service to Youngstown and Akron. And the only daily train left standing between Pittsburgh and Chicago was the Capitol Ltd.

And so here we are where we are.

I believe David Gunn followed George Warrington as the head of Amtrak.

Warrington established the extended Three Rivers as part of his plan to have mail and express subsidize the passenger service. The Pennsylvanian extension to Chicago was for the same reason with the schedule set so that it left Philadelphia so early that it became useless as a cross-Pennsylvania train. Although the Pennsylvanian was nice for Ohio to Chicago traffic, Pennsylvania was left with no day service across the state.

When the "glide path to self-sufficiency" routed Amtrak to a crash landing short of the runway, Warrington made his hasty exit and David Gunn arrived from Nova Scotia. He quickly axed the mail and express service (much to the displeasure of the USPS) and he just as quickly axed the Three Rivers and cut the Pennsylvanian back to Pittsburgh. The only good thing was that the Pennsylvanian was returned to a more useful schedule for passengers between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

 

[Railroad Bill]

And to think that I may have had two Amtrak trains running withing 10 miles of my house. (Ft Wayne line in Ashland Co) and B&O line in Ashland Co).

Of course I still would have had to take pictures at 2-3 am in the morning when they came by :giggle:

 

[PRR 60]

And to think that I may have had two Amtrak trains running withing 10 miles of my house. (Ft Wayne line in Ashland Co) and B&O line in Ashland Co).

Of course I still would have had to take pictures at 2-3 am in the morning when they came by :giggle:

The exPRR Fort Wayne Line and the exB&O line did not host Amtrak trains at the same time.

When Conrail was rationalizing their system, they decided to downgrade the exPRR Fort Wayne line. The Amtrak Broadway Limited, following its PRR heritage, used the exPRR line. Conrail made Amtrak an offer it could not refuse: stay on the PRR line and pay all the costs to maintain the line to passenger standards, or move to the old B&O line with no additional cost. Amtrak moved the Broadway Limited to the old B&O line. All the former PRR executives rolled over in their graves.

 

[jis]

I believe David Gunn followed George Warrington as the head of Amtrak.

You're of course right. Gunn killed the Three Rivers, not the Broadway. Broadway was gone before Warrington.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Then came Gunn and in a spiteful moment he axed the Broadway. With the advent of Warrington the Broadway was sort of resurrected as a rag tag circus of a train without a sleeper and named Three Rivers, over the CSX route. Eventually Three Rivers even got a Heritage sleeper

Well, Dr. Mukerji, for once I will correct you. Gunn had nothing to do with the elimination of the Broadway Limited, it was Thomas Downs. And spite had very little to do with it. At that time, Amtrak had 7 Long Distance trains running single level: Palmetto, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, Broadway, Lake Shore, Montrealer, Crescent. The Florida trains had excellent ridership numbers, as always- these were the years of the twin unit diners, remember. The Crescent had good enough ridership to survive and was the only train running its main cities.

Amtrak intended to order 100 Viewliner sleepers, as well as other equipment. When the order was cut back, they only had enough sleepers to handle a reduced network. Amtrak, as always, was anxiously looking to get rid of the antiques running on their railroad, so they had to cut somewhere. The Montrealer never made much sense, and was cut into the state-funded Vermonter. Of the two Chicago-New York trains, the Lake Shore Limited had better ridership, as it always has since it joined the National Network in the late seventies.

The logical train to cut was the Broadway. So it was cut. The Pennsy served the same route, and the Capitol Limited allowed Broadway passengers to proceed to Chicago, albeit with a train change.

Gunn's later cutting of the Three Rivers, which was a freight train in most ways, was part of his attempt to improve relations with the freight railroads.

 

[jis]

Then came Gunn and in a spiteful moment he axed the Broadway. With the advent of Warrington the Broadway was sort of resurrected as a rag tag circus of a train without a sleeper and named Three Rivers, over the CSX route. Eventually Three Rivers even got a Heritage sleeper

Well, Dr. Mukerji, for once I will correct you. Gunn had nothing to do with the elimination of the Broadway Limited, it was Thomas Downs.

Of course you are right. Everyone is allowed a brain fart from time to time, no?

 

[jis]

When the "glide path to self-sufficiency" routed Amtrak to a crash landing short of the runway, Warrington made his hasty exit and David Gunn arrived from Nova Scotia. He quickly axed the mail and express service (much to the displeasure of the USPS) and he just as quickly axed the Three Rivers and cut the Pennsylvanian back to Pittsburgh. The only good thing was that the Pennsylvanian was returned to a more useful schedule for passengers between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh.

Actually Pennsylvanian was cut back in 2003, while the Three Rivers survived till 2005. It was nixed in the summer timetable in 2005. It was one of Gunn's last parting gifts to Amtrak. I know NARP fought that one hard and lost, and with that Youngstown, Akron, Fostoria and Nappanee lost service.

Gunn with the help of his pal Crosbie, also cut NE Regional trains down to 5 cars among other of his achievement. That was reversed only after Kummant came on and hired Emmett Fremaux, who also had to arm wrestle Crosbie. Actually Three Rivers was not carrying any Warrington freight at the time it was nixed. It was just before Gunn exited stage left.

I have heard that COO Crosbie was dead set against continuing the Three Rivers, ... , the same Crosbie whose mission in life appeared to be to slowly but surely dismember Amtrak's LD service. He was dead set against even considering reinstatement of Sunset East, making Sunset daily or any of the other initiatives that we have discussed here. People within Amtrak had to risk their careers under him to preserve what they could of the LD network. He had to be fought tooth and nail over every attempt by people like Rosenwald at Amtrak to enhance any service, until he was pushed out by Boardman.

 

[Trogdor]

Actually Pennsylvanian was cut back in 2003, while the Three Rivers survived till 2005. It was nixed in the summer timetable in 2005. It was one of Gunn's last parting gifts to Amtrak. I know NARP fought that one hard and lost, and with that Youngstown, Akron, Fostoria and Nappanee lost service.

The Three Rivers's last run was in March, 2005.

Without digging up old timetables, my recollection of the timeline is such: Sometime in 2003, the Pennsylvanian goes from PHL-CHI to NYP-PGH. Amtrak ran two daily trains NYP-PGH (Three Rivers and Pennsylvanian) until August or September 2004, when the official word came that the M&E business was being axed, and with that the 180-day notice for discontinuing service to Youngstown and a few other cities nobody lives in. That's when the Pennsylvanian was temporarily eliminated, and only the Three Rivers continued to run until six months later, when the 180-day period ended, and the train went away.

I did one quick trip to Harrisburg and back the weekend it went away (I was on the second-to-last westbound run). It wasn't that bad of a trip, but it had lost its sleeper some time earlier (maybe a year or two), and food service was just your typical crappy cafe car fare.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Then came Gunn and in a spiteful moment he axed the Broadway. With the advent of Warrington the Broadway was sort of resurrected as a rag tag circus of a train without a sleeper and named Three Rivers, over the CSX route. Eventually Three Rivers even got a Heritage sleeper

Well, Dr. Mukerji, for once I will correct you. Gunn had nothing to do with the elimination of the Broadway Limited, it was Thomas Downs.

Of course you are right. Everyone is allowed a brain fart from time to time, no?

Of course... but you seem to revel in pointing out mine, so...

 

[jis]

Then came Gunn and in a spiteful moment he axed the Broadway. With the advent of Warrington the Broadway was sort of resurrected as a rag tag circus of a train without a sleeper and named Three Rivers, over the CSX route. Eventually Three Rivers even got a Heritage sleeper

Well, Dr. Mukerji, for once I will correct you. Gunn had nothing to do with the elimination of the Broadway Limited, it was Thomas Downs.

Of course you are right. Everyone is allowed a brain fart from time to time, no?

Of course... but you seem to revel in pointing out mine, so...

I apologize most profusely for hurting your feelings. Actually I don't mind being corrected at all, and thank you for re-correcting me well after PRR had already corrected me . Ooops sorry again.

At the end of the day it is better for all of us if correct information is presented here than otherwise, so it is good for everyone to correct errors, and accept such corrections graciously, though I agree it should be done in a sensitive way. And of course the people having brain farts like me should not take it personally as I did not. At the end of the day this is all in fun here, and nothing really hangs in balance. No Fulushima Daiichi taking place here

 

[jis]

I did one quick trip to Harrisburg and back the weekend it went away (I was on the second-to-last westbound run). It wasn't that bad of a trip, but it had lost its sleeper some time earlier (maybe a year or two), and food service was just your typical crappy cafe car fare.

Thanks for the details. I believe it lost its sleeper service in the 2003 November timetable. It did have Viewliner Sleeper and Dinette service in the 2003 summer timetable, and did not have it anymore in the 2004 summer timetable.

BTW, ideally a separate LD train should use a separate route, and the ideal would be if it could use the original Broadway route through Ft. Wayne. I understand this might again become possible with certain new trackage that has been added in the Chicago area allowing trains from the remainder of this line to get into Chicago again. But in general this will be a serious additional effort to get the line back in order for such service, and will be hard to achieve without local help.