Pennsylvanian may end

[henryj]

NEC, which is perfectly capable of paying for itself.

This statement is of course a joke as the NEC doesn't come even close to paying for itself. We all pay, all 50 states, for maintianing the NEC. Revenues only cover it's direct operating costs, at least according to Amtrak accounting. You have to wonder what Amtrak allocates in user fees to trains like the Pennsylvanian or the LD trains that use the corridor. Do they give those trains the same bargain basement rates they pay the freight railroads or do they just stick it to them? lol.

The NEC does pay for itself however. What it doesn't pay for are upgrades and other major capital expenses, but state and Federal grants pay for that.

A Federal grant is mine and everyone else's tax money as is a State grant.

This train runs on the NEC to Philly. None of that is going away. It runs on the Keystone corridor to Harrisburg. None of that is going away. In fact they may even continue the schedule as far as Harrisburg as a Keystone frequency. The equipment will just be reallocated in the existing Amtrak pool. So Amtrak is asking the state of Penn to pay all that money for the remaining 249 miles of the route. And if it is discontinued then the Capitol just picks up the tab for Pittsburgh as it will be the only remaining service. I think Penn is being bamboozled and I would bet that PennDOT is thinking the same.

 

[DivMiler]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

"HAR" is the station code for Harrisburg.

 

[jis]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

"HAR" is the station code for Harrisburg.

Right. Even the IATA code for Harrisburg Airport which is more like in Middletown PA is HAR!
HBG is Hattiesburg - both the Amtrak code for the train station and the IATA code for the airport.

 

[PRR 60]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

"HAR" is the station code for Harrisburg.

Right. Even the IATA code for Harrisburg Airport which is more like in Middletown PA is HAR!
HBG is Hattiesburg - both the Amtrak code for the train station and the IATA code for the airport.

The IATA code for Harrisburg International Airport is MDT.

 

[jis]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

"HAR" is the station code for Harrisburg.

Right. Even the IATA code for Harrisburg Airport which is more like in Middletown PA is HAR!
HBG is Hattiesburg - both the Amtrak code for the train station and the IATA code for the airport.

The IATA code for Harrisburg International Airport is MDT.

It is MDT for obvious reason! You are right of course. HAR is the code for Harrisburg Skyport. Sorry about that faux pas.

 

[benjibear]

I think they could cut the manned stations at Johnstown and Altoona. I just don't think these are needed.

I think they should allign the times to better connect with the Capitol Limited in Pittsburgh. There should be a 1 hour layover scheduled. I beleive if they did this, it would make this train more of a marketable solution from NYP or PHL to the mid west. Later I would like to see sleepers and maybe a diner.

In addition, I think this line could make more money if there were two trains per day. The way it is now, one must stay a minimum of two nights if they were going on bussiness. The second train would allow a person to leave one day in the morning and return the next day in the afternoon. I think it should concentrate of PHL or HAR to PGH.

Honestly, I think if they "extended" some keystone trains west about an hour, they make get ridership with commuters. This is a whole other issues because the electric stops at Harrisburg.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

I think they could cut the manned stations at Johnstown and Altoona. I just don't think these are needed.
I think they should allign the times to better connect with the Capitol Limited in Pittsburgh. There should be a 1 hour layover scheduled. I beleive if they did this, it would make this train more of a marketable solution from NYP or PHL to the mid west. Later I would like to see sleepers and maybe a diner.

In addition, I think this line could make more money if there were two trains per day. The way it is now, one must stay a minimum of two nights if they were going on bussiness. The second train would allow a person to leave one day in the morning and return the next day in the afternoon. I think it should concentrate of PHL or HAR to PGH.

Honestly, I think if they "extended" some keystone trains west about an hour, they make get ridership with commuters. This is a whole other issues because the electric stops at Harrisburg.

They are already planning to add a through Sleeper, a Cafe, and two Coaches. I agree that NYP-CHI is a great market that could be expanded on. Right now we're not going to see two trains a day when PA is trying to get rid of the only one. And extending the Keystone west would be impractical because there's nowhere significant there and you would have to use a diesel from PHL.

 

[Barciur]

Where are they planning to add a through sleeper?

Also, what's the reasoning behind having to change to diesel in Philly? Why not in Harrisburg?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

They are planning to add the through cars NYP-CHI on the Pennsy/CL once the Viewliner IIs all get delivered. They have to change in PHL because the engine facilities in HAR were demolished.

 

[Nathanael]

If the PA state government stupidly cancels the Pennsylvanian, of course, we may never see the through cars from NYP-CHI. Despite recent successes, Amtrak is not really in a position to internally fund a new long-distance train such as a restoration of the Broadway Limited -- it might be in such a position a few years from now, but not yet.

Well, selfishly speaking (as an upstate NYer), if the Pennsylvanian is cut, Amtrak will be forced to respond with an even longer Lake Shore Limited and more effort put into it. (In terms of long-distance travel, that's the other reasonable NYP-CHI route.) Business will head to the rail-accessible upstate NY and continue draining away from the inaccessible western Pennsylvania. Maybe the LSL will get long enough that it will require doubling the frequency. ^_^

 

[jis]

Where are they planning to add a through sleeper?

When the west end crossover is put in place in Pittsburgh station and when more Sleepers become available with the dleivery of Viewliner IIs.

Also, what's the reasoning behind having to change to diesel in Philly? Why not in Harrisburg?

The train has to reverse direction in 30th St. St station. So unless you are running it push-pull with cab car like the Keystones, you have to move the engine from one end to the other anyway. So the logistics is much simpler to change to diesel at Philly.
Runnig diese should have minimial detrimental effect anyway since at least some of the diesled used are capable of 110mph, and there is no segment of the Keystone Line that has speed limits higher than that.

 

[Jersey Jeff]

FYI, a local PA paper has opined that the Pennsylvanian be eliminated because the train is slow and no one rides it blah blah blah.

Our View: Cut Amtrak's Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route

 

[Barciur]

Anyone knows what is the total PA DOT budget? How much of a percentage is this 7 million subsidy that they'd have to cough up? I thought that figure was somewhere in the thread but I don't recall completely.

This is a noob question probably but I'm not sure on the answer - does the sleeper have a coach car in it as well? I'd assume it does.. it could also serve local traffic at night, as for example the last leaving train from Philly to Harrisburg leaves at 11 PM.. a train between then and 5:25 would I bet get a little bit of traffic, too, in addition to the target customers.

 

[Ryan]

FYI, a local PA paper has opined that the Pennsylvanian be eliminated because the train is slow and no one rides it blah blah blah.

Our View: Cut Amtrak's Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route

The conclusion:

If the state’s going to spend money on rail transportation, it should do so where money would be better spent. Continuing to upgrade the Harrisburg-to-Philadelphia line, or investing with NJ Transit on plans to bring commuter rail to the Scranton area, seem more palpable than maintaining money-losing service to Pittsburgh.

I wonder how much money the state "loses" on building and maintaining roads that "nobody" uses.

 

[Nathanael Nerode]

From Wikipedia, regarding PennDOT:

The current budget is approximately $3.8 billion in federal and state funds.

For further perspective:

State payments to local communities for road maintenance also have continued to expand so that they average approximately $170 million annually.

This is just state support for roads which AREN'T state highways.
So $7 million is really, genuinely, a drop in the bucket. The endless, giant, leaky bucket of road funding.

 

[benjibear]

This person writing this opinion rather the money going to the Lackawanna cut off project to Scranton. While that would be nice, that project has been talked about for about my entire life.

I would like to see this person try driving out of downtown Harrisburg on rush hour on a Friday.

 

[jis]

Specially considering that the funding holdup for Lackawanna Cutoff is mostly in NJ at present, it is not clear how PA can contribute money saved bby discontinuing the Pennsylvanian to do any thing for the Lackawanna Cutoff.

 

[Anderson]

Where are they planning to add a through sleeper?

When the west end crossover is put in place in Pittsburgh station and when more Sleepers become available with the dleivery of Viewliner IIs.

Also, what's the reasoning behind having to change to diesel in Philly? Why not in Harrisburg?

The train has to reverse direction in 30th St. St station. So unless you are running it push-pull with cab car like the Keystones, you have to move the engine from one end to the other anyway. So the logistics is much simpler to change to diesel at Philly.
Runnig diese should have minimial detrimental effect anyway since at least some of the diesled used are capable of 110mph, and there is no segment of the Keystone Line that has speed limits higher than that.

Since I recall a coach also being part of the plan, is there some way Amtrak could just jam a through coach onto the train to protect it and then prioritize it for a new Viewliner ASAP?

 

[Ryan]

Trackwork in PHG isn't done to support it. Maybe NS can be convinced to get it in gear...

 

[AlanB]

Specially considering that the funding holdup for Lackawanna Cutoff is mostly in NJ at present, it is not clear how PA can contribute money saved bby discontinuing the Pennsylvanian to do any thing for the Lackawanna Cutoff.

Well it's also clear that this person(s) have no idea wht it costs to run a commuter operation. As a general rule, Amtrak covers more of its expenses than most commuter operations.

So he talks about every little bit helping and then proceeds to spend more than saved.

 

[AlanB]

Since I recall a coach also being part of the plan, is there some way Amtrak could just jam a through coach onto the train to protect it and then prioritize it for a new Viewliner ASAP?

I admit that I have seriously studied the verbiage of the provisions that dump costs onto the states for trains under 750, but is it a certainty that having maybe half of the train going long distance means that he entire train becomes exempt from the 750 rule?

And of course we also don't know that Amtrak actual wants to accept the loss on the Pennsy, even if this trick does work.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Specially considering that the funding holdup for Lackawanna Cutoff is mostly in NJ at present, it is not clear how PA can contribute money saved bby discontinuing the Pennsylvanian to do any thing for the Lackawanna Cutoff.

Why let reality ruin some hack's dream? hboy: :blink: :wacko:

 

[Anderson]

Since I recall a coach also being part of the plan, is there some way Amtrak could just jam a through coach onto the train to protect it and then prioritize it for a new Viewliner ASAP?

I admit that I have seriously studied the verbiage of the provisions that dump costs onto the states for trains under 750, but is it a certainty that having maybe half of the train going long distance means that he entire train becomes exempt from the 750 rule?

And of course we also don't know that Amtrak actual wants to accept the loss on the Pennsy, even if this trick does work.

I'm not sure, and I think I could make a solid case either way. In a pinch, Amtrak could probably argue that the Pennsy would (under those circumstances) be the NYP-CHI section of the Capitol Limited with a few cars not going through. The other angle is that I was informed by the COO of the VA DRPT that if a train has a diner or a sleeper attached, it somehow slips into the national system. Whether this is correct or not, it is what I've been told (and it's apparently one of the biggest potential trip-ups to a sleeper going back on 66/67); if this truly is the case, then in a truly desperate pinch I'd swap a sleeper from the LSL to the Pennsylvanian/Limited and then shove the first sleepers off the Viewliner order onto the Cap. I have absolutely no doubt this would be a mess, but IMHO it's better to do that and preserve a stable operating situation than not to.

As to the question of Amtrak absorbing the loss, assuming $6 million per year in losses on the Pennsylvanian (it actually lists as $5.6m before OPEBs and $5.9m afterwards) I'm not sure that Amtrak actually would lose money on absorbing the loss (especially if the through car plan actually comes to fruition in its intended form, which IIRC was supposed to reduce overall losses). The Cap does enough turnover at PGH that you'd probably lose at least $1-2 million due to the cut connection there (both directly and indirectly through redistributed buckets), so that cuts the effective savings substantially, and the number likely falls further if there's further follow-on traffic that is going to be lost. Moreover, not all of those $6 million are actual operating costs. At least some of those allocated losses are going to "pop up" elsewhere in the system due to reallocated overhead.

Basically, if the choice is, in effect, either cutting the Pennsylvanian or following through with the Cap's PIP and just eating the losses on the Pennsylvanian as the cost of doing business, I think the latter may actually lose less money. I'd point out that it's not like Amtrak was jumping up and down trying to get rid of service on this line, either...if not for PRIIA, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

If those through cars would snap the train into the National System, then all these problems wouldn't be here if the Viewliner IIs are getting delivered right now instead of being delayed.

 

[Anderson]

Well, I think the work in PGH is also at issue.

Another thing I'll say is that it's worth noting that the parts of PRIIA with the nominal intent of making states consider other operators for short-distance trains has been a miserable failure from what I can tell: The only train I've heard serious consideration of letting someone else operate is the Surfliner, which is basically the CA equivalent of an LIRR/MNRR commuter train with a parlor car.