neroden
Engineer
That's what Westchester is for. And if it's NYS which is disliked, there's Connecticut!One quick thought on NJ: There are a lot of reasons for folks not wanting to live in NYC, and it's not just the taxes.
That's what Westchester is for. And if it's NYS which is disliked, there's Connecticut!One quick thought on NJ: There are a lot of reasons for folks not wanting to live in NYC, and it's not just the taxes.
A positive story on passenger train travel published in the Indianapolis newspaper and challenges facing the continuation of the Hoosier State. An on-topic link! This thread has gotten a wee bit off-topic, just a little, and rather far removed from Indiana and funding the HS.Columnist focuses on the comfort of train travel.
I agree. The ridership numbers and ticket prices for the CL indicate that it has lower demand and a weaker market than NYP hub trains. While this thread has gotten way off into LD train proposals that are simply not going to happen, it Amtrak ever restores an LD service, it should be NYP to PHL to CHI. It would connect 3 of Amtrak's largest markets and 3 cities with strong rail transit systems. I have made this argument before that a Three Rivers/BL that departs NYP circa 6:30 PM could provide daytime service between CLE and CHI (maybe rerouted through MI). Daytime service in CLE would also provide viable connections to the CLE transit system that a middle of the night train does not. Think how an LD train can be scheduled to provide seat turnover and multiple city markets along the route.One concern I would have about going with the 2x Cap idea before addressing New York trains is that leaving the Card aside for the moment, the Cap is by far the weaker of the two trains and if a Broadway were reintroduced past experience would indicate that the New York trains will always be the stronger trains. whether they be via the ex-NYC or ex-Pennsy. Arguably Amtrak in its infinite wisdom screwed up royally when they cancelled the Broadway/Three Rivers, after mismanaging it royally first in true good old railway tradition to destroy ridership by mismanagement and then use that as an argument to can a train.
I think the first priority should be to beef up CHI - NYC/BOS service considerably before worrying about a second Cap frequency. I would do a separate CHI - NYC and CHO - BOS service together with reinstatement of the Broadway, even if on ex-B&O like the old Three Rivers in its final days, before worrying about 2x Cap.
Exactly. But did the Washington section ever go via Philadelphia. I know it used the Port road to Harrisburg. With the 100mph upgrade I suspect Phila routing wouldn't be that much longer.You mean what Amtrak used to do with the Broadway Washington Section before they reorganized things?
Yes, at one point it did run via Philadelphia. During that time, I believe the Broadway Limited's New York section skipped PHL station entirely, with the Washington section providing service to PHL. I can double-check a book or two at home later to try to nail down the timeline of when it ran which route. (Although, by then, perhaps someone else will chime in with the specific years.)Exactly. But did the Washington section ever go via Philadelphia. I know it used the Port road to Harrisburg. With the 100mph upgrade I suspect Phila routing wouldn't be that much longer.You mean what Amtrak used to do with the Broadway Washington Section before they reorganized things?
I checked a few old Amtrak timetables I have ('71''73) and don't see the Washington section going via Phila. In 1973 it took about 3.5 hours to run the 140 miles direct via Perryville from Baltimore to Harrisburg.Yes, at one point it did run via Philadelphia. During that time, I believe the Broadway Limited's New York section skipped PHL station entirely, with the Washington section providing service to PHL. I can double-check a book or two at home later to try to nail down the timeline of when it ran which route. (Although, by then, perhaps someone else will chime in with the specific years.)Exactly. But did the Washington section ever go via Philadelphia. I know it used the Port road to Harrisburg. With the 100mph upgrade I suspect Phila routing wouldn't be that much longer.You mean what Amtrak used to do with the Broadway Washington Section before they reorganized things?
Can't do that without violating the law and ticking off every other state.Ok, to clarify:
Amtrak and PA were able to come to some strange agreement whereby the Pennsylvanian's costs (according to the funding formula in place) were not entirely borne by PA (unlike the rest of the state corridors) because of the through-car plan. My suggestion was that Amtrak would basically manage to declare the Pennsylvanian as part of the national system in its entirety, but only if PA would pick up a second daily train (which would also have at least some level of connection with one of the Capitol Limited frequencies I proposed). Basically, PA gets a long-term buy-one get-one with their trains (note that PA does seem to want a second frequency).
And what is the difference between what I described and operating a "New York section" of the Capitol Limited via the Pennsylvanian's route (or, for that matter, a revived Broadway presumably using the Cap's routing west of PGH)?Can't do that without violating the law and ticking off every other state.Ok, to clarify:
Amtrak and PA were able to come to some strange agreement whereby the Pennsylvanian's costs (according to the funding formula in place) were not entirely borne by PA (unlike the rest of the state corridors) because of the through-car plan. My suggestion was that Amtrak would basically manage to declare the Pennsylvanian as part of the national system in its entirety, but only if PA would pick up a second daily train (which would also have at least some level of connection with one of the Capitol Limited frequencies I proposed). Basically, PA gets a long-term buy-one get-one with their trains (note that PA does seem to want a second frequency).
Because sections, as currently implemented, attach to other trains (in their entirety to my knowledge); I do believe that's the historical practice as well. Declaring the Pennsylvanian to be a section, while not actually treating it as such, would run afoul of the PRIAA requirements. A revived Broadway, similarly, would be an entirely different train which continues on to Chicago, not a second Pennsylvanian terminating in Pittsburgh.And what is the difference between what I described and operating a "New York section" of the Capitol Limited via the Pennsylvanian's route (or, for that matter, a revived Broadway presumably using the Cap's routing west of PGH)?
Enter your email address to join: