Through car CL <---> Pennsylvanian? (2+ years old)

[NY Penn]

Would a through sleeper or coach car from the CL to the Pennsylvanian via Pittsburgh be well-utilized? (Obviously, it would not operate eastbound on Sundays unless there is a schedule change). Are there three spare Viewliners or Amfleets for this? Would this even be possible logistically (does the CL have a transition sleeper that can be attached to single-level cars)?

This was most likely the majority of the Three Rivers ridership base (I never rode it as far as I remember), as the via Akron, OH route was served in the middle of the night.

 

[Ryan]

Go read the Capitol Limited Improvement Plan.

Then read the resulting thread that discussed it here.

All of your questions will be answered.

 

[jis]

Read FY10 Performance Improvement Plan, Capitol Limited - PRIIA Section 210.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

and the voting option missing is NO, No through sleeper! It isn't needed!

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I want to add a couple of points:

If you really want one bed from PHL to CHI via the Capitol. Instead of tagging onto the Pennsylvanian, you could slap the Viewliners onto the back of a Regional, leave later from PHL than the Penny and still get to WAS with 2 hours to spare, put the ViewLiners on the back of the Capitol right at the start of it's trip. There really is no race to get to Pittsburgh (I work less than 100 yards from the station, there is NOTHING to do there), you're not really losing anything by not being parked in Pittsburgh station for 4 (or more) hours waiting for the Capitol and then the required switching operation. There is no need for a bedroom from NYP to PGH, so unless you're really looking for a bedroom to Canton Ohio, the Lakeshore Ltd gets you one bed service from NYP to Cleveland - Chicago.

The switching operation would be a HUGE mess in Pittsburgh. The improvement plan calls for the addition of a switch at the western end of the station that would eliminate the need for a big issue wying the train. But that mean either they are going to pull the westbound Penny into track 1A and have people walking across the Norfolk Southern mainline at 8pm, or they'll pull it into track 3 like they do today, let people off. Back out over track 1 (the NS Main) pull onto track 1a, drop the through cars, pull back out onto track 1, then back the 15 miles into Turtle Creek for the wye operation and then back into town to park on their spur overnight.

I have issues with the Capitol Ltd. Improvement plan:

1. They are already selling out this train with some regularity. Due to the maneuver time/costs I described above, it is far more bang for the buck to add more Superliners in WAS and skip the switchouts. (not that Amtrak has the Superliners... but I digress), and despite the high buckets and regular sellouts, they are still managing to lose vast amount of money on this route.
2. The statement that they lose 40% of passengers if they have to change trains. If they have to change trains in Pittsburgh, that number is likely to be much higher, but people on the NEC are used to changing trains. A two hour skip down to DC for $35 or a 1.5 hour skip to to NYP for the Lakeshore really isn't that big of a deal. They'd spend more time in Philly International Airport getting fondled by the TSA. Are people in NYC really itching for better sleeper service to Chicago? Fix the Lake Shore before trying to tag cars onto the Penny.
3. This "Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times." is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is never on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.
4. This: "These would be in addition to a base Pennsylvanian train consist of one P-42 diesel electric locomotive and two or three coaches" is out of date. The Pennsylvanian is currently up to 5 coaches plus a food service car. If you want to put a Viewliner and two more Amfleets on there then Amtrak is probably going to need another P-42 to drag that consist over the Allegheny Mountains. Strangely, the Foodservice car goes on through to Chicago in the Performance Improvement Plan, but I can't figure out why.
5. The "Performance Improvement Plan" for the Cap Ltd. loses even more money than the Capitol Ltd does now!! They predict that doing this plan the losses will go from $21.1 million to $21.8 million!

I continue to maintain that most bang + least buck for Amtrak on the Penny is that it stops at PHL for connections to Regional or Acela. Trains 42 and 44 both run EVERY DAY and a new train (45?) runs a 7:10 departure from PHL to PGH while train 43 backs up from a 12:48 departure to a 13:20 departure. Resulting in twice daily departure from each city.

Amtrak would need two additional P-42s, two additional food service cars, and two additional Amfleet coaches. This would produce four sets of 3 coaches + food service. Aside from the P-42s, this is less equipment requirement than the 3 viewliners, 2 Amfleet IIs, and 1 Food service car that PIP calls for.

 

[Trogdor]

This "Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times." is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is never on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.

And you'll notice that this option was dropped from consideration, so I'm not sure what you gain by ragging on it.

Oh, and such as it is, train 30 was on time into DC 54% of the time for the 12 months ended May 2011. Not a great OTP, but you have a funny definition of "never" if more than half the time counts as "never."

 

[Oldsmoboi]

This "Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times." is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is never on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.

And you'll notice that this option was dropped from consideration, so I'm not sure what you gain by ragging on it.

Oh, and such as it is, train 30 was on time into DC 54% of the time for the 12 months ended May 2011. Not a great OTP, but you have a funny definition of "never" if more than half the time counts as "never."

Because of the daftness of including something in a performance improvement plan that has already been proven not to work.

I've been watching the Capitol OTP since about February and it runs late pretty consistently. It will typically get lost somewhere between Toledo and Cleveland and then again between Pittsburgh and Cumberland.

 

[AlanB]

The switching operation would be a HUGE mess in Pittsburgh. The improvement plan calls for the addition of a switch at the western end of the station that would eliminate the need for a big issue wying the train. But that mean either they are going to pull the westbound Penny into track 1A and have people walking across the Norfolk Southern mainline at 8pm, or they'll pull it into track 3 like they do today, let people off. Back out over track 1 (the NS Main) pull onto track 1a, drop the through cars, pull back out onto track 1, then back the 15 miles into Turtle Creek for the wye operation and then back into town to park on their spur overnight.

While I freely admit that I've never done more than peek out my window in the dark while onboard one of the various trains that have run through PGH, what you're describing is dead wrong.

Nothing much really changes with the Pennsy, they'll keep doing the same thing that they do right now with that train, with one expection. They'll set out 1 coach, 1 cafe car, and 1 sleeper. Otherwise, nothing else changes!

Then the Cap going west pulls in, the crew cuts off the engines & bag, pulls down to clear that new switch, hooks up the 3 setout cars. They then pull back over the switch, back up onto the rest of the Cap's consist connecting the single level coach to the Trans/Dorm and away they go. No 15 mile backup moves needed.

 

[afigg]

I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.

PA is studying the options on increased daily frequency to Pittsbrgh and improvements for west of Harrisburg trip times. See http://www.planthekeystone.com/keystonewest.html for an update and overview. Item 6 of the FAQ Is a pretty clear indication that they are not looking in any depth at how to provide true HSR over that route, but at identifying a series of incremental improvements to the western Keystone corridor that can be done in small funded steps over time.

Add a 2nd daily Pennsylvanian and possibly ask / fund Amtrak to restore the Three Rivers once enough Viewliner 2 have been delivered. 3 daily round trip trains between Pittsburgh and PHL & NYP combined with some trip time improvements could boost ridership on the route considerably.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Well what they do now with the Penny is pull into track 3 which is a spur and then wye the train around 8:45pm, only to return back to track 3 but facing the correct direction for the next morning's train. If they continue to pull into Track 3 after this PIP, then they'll need to back out onto Track 1, pull into Track 1A to set out the through cars, pull forward onto Track 1, and then back to Turtle Creek for the wye operation. (I'm sure they wouldn't take the through cars out to Turtle Creek for the wye unless they were absolutely in the wrong order).

If they pull into Track 1A as the PIP describes as a possibility, then you have passengers walking over the NS eastbound main (Track 1). Operationally, pulling into Track 1A on arrival is the least complicated move... but from a liability standpoint, I am 100% certain Amtrak doesn't want passengers stumbling over that NS mainline. I suppose they could arrive on Track 1, and then NS could divert onto 1A, but the speed would have to be extra slow.

The15 mile backup move I described is for the Penny only to turn the train for the next morning's run. If I somehow implied that they were turning the Cap Ltd., I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

I live and work next to these lines and ride them frequently. A mile east of Pittsburgh station, the lines the Cap and Penny run on diverge. About 7 miles outside of town, they come back together to run parallel for about 3 miles before going their separate ways for the rest of their routes. I live along this 3 mile section of the route.

This is the view from my office:



I'm pretty familiar with the operations.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.

PA is studying the options on increased daily frequency to Pittsbrgh and improvements for west of Harrisburg trip times. See http://www.plantheke...ystonewest.html for an update and overview. Item 6 of the FAQ Is a pretty clear indication that they are not looking in any depth at how to provide true HSR over that route, but at identifying a series of incremental improvements to the western Keystone corridor that can be done in small funded steps over time.

Add a 2nd daily Pennsylvanian and possibly ask / fund Amtrak to restore the Three Rivers once enough Viewliner 2 have been delivered. 3 daily round trip trains between Pittsburgh and PHL & NYP combined with some trip time improvements could boost ridership on the route considerably.

Yes please!

I know it's not going to be HSR anytime soon, but the route is already usable to me as is if they would just add another departure time daily. It's clearly usable to other people as well. The line has been up a good percentage along with the rest of Amtrak.

 

[AlanB]

Well what they do now with the Penny is pull into track 3 which is a spur and then wye the train around 8:45pm, only to return back to track 3 but facing the correct direction for the next morning's train. If they continue to pull into Track 3 after this PIP, then they'll need to back out onto Track 1, pull into Track 1A to set out the through cars, pull forward onto Track 1, and then back to Turtle Creek for the wye operation. (I'm sure they wouldn't take the through cars out to Turtle Creek for the wye unless they were absolutely in the wrong order).

If they pull into Track 1A as the PIP describes as a possibility, then you have passengers walking over the NS eastbound main (Track 1). Operationally, pulling into Track 1A on arrival is the least complicated move... but from a liability standpoint, I am 100% certain Amtrak doesn't want passengers stumbling over that NS mainline. I suppose they could arrive on Track 1, and then NS could divert onto 1A, but the speed would have to be extra slow.

The15 mile backup move I described is for the Penny only to turn the train for the next morning's run. If I somehow implied that they were turning the Cap Ltd., I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

I live and work next to these lines and ride them frequently. A mile east of Pittsburgh station, the lines the Cap and Penny run on diverge. About 7 miles outside of town, they come back together to run parallel for about 3 miles before going their separate ways for the rest of their routes. I live along this 3 mile section of the route.

I'm pretty familiar with the operations.

Again, I'm not familiar enough with things to describe things properly. But the bottom line is that the plan means minimial extra movements on the part of all trains. Whatever they currently do to turn the Pennsy will continue to happen, without being impacted by the setout cars, other than to set them out.

So bottom line, Pennsy pulls in and discharges pax like normal. Then it drops off the through cars, before performing the rest of its normal routine upon arrival. Cap pulls in, engines & bag cut off to pickup setouts, then return to couple up with the rest of the train.

Reversing things, arriving cap dumps off through cars, when crew of Pennsy arrives, they hook on the turned consist to the through cars. Amtrak wouldn't be considering this idea if it was going to required major 15 mile moves to deal with these setout cars. Yes, it adds a bit more work, but not huge amounts of work. And the benefit will outweigh that work.

 

[Ryan]

1. They are already selling out this train with some regularity. Due to the maneuver time/costs I described above, it is far more bang for the buck to add more Superliners in WAS and skip the switchouts. (not that Amtrak has the Superliners... but I digress), and despite the high buckets and regular sellouts, they are still managing to lose vast amount of money on this route.

Like you said, no Superliners available, and they lose money on every LD route.
 

The statement that they lose 40% of passengers if they have to change trains. If they have to change trains in Pittsburgh, that number is likely to be much higher, but people on the NEC are used to changing trains. A two hour skip down to DC for $35 or a 1.5 hour skip to to NYP for the Lakeshore really isn't that big of a deal. They'd spend more time in Philly International Airport getting fondled by the TSA. Are people in NYC really itching for better sleeper service to Chicago? Fix the Lake Shore before trying to tag cars onto the Penny.

The ridership of the Cardinal exploded when they dropped the Superliners and went one seat to NYP. I think that Alan has some other examples of where providing a one seat ride has made massive improvements in ridership. You might not agree with it, and you might not mind forcing other people to change trains, but you can't change the facts.
 

This "Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times." is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is never on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.

Which is why they're not doing it.
 

This: "These would be in addition to a base Pennsylvanian train consist of one P-42 diesel electric locomotive and two or three coaches" is out of date. The Pennsylvanian is currently up to 5 coaches plus a food service car. If you want to put a Viewliner and two more Amfleets on there then Amtrak is probably going to need another P-42 to drag that consist over the Allegheny Mountains. Strangely, the Foodservice car goes on through to Chicago in the Performance Improvement Plan, but I can't figure out why.

It's not out of date, it lists what the consist WOULD BE. You wouldn't need the extra P42 because the train would be the same length (or one car longer) as it is today. The food service car would be helpful to serve the extra passengers on the combined train.
 

The "Performance Improvement Plan" for the Cap Ltd. loses even more money than the Capitol Ltd does now!! They predict that doing this plan the losses will go from $21.1 million to $21.8 million!

Providing much better service for only $700,000? Sounds like a bargain to me.

 

[Shanghai]

I agree with Ryan's comments. If I want a sleeper to PGH, I take the NER to WAS and take the Capitol Limited.

I did the Pennsylvanian to PGH then connected to the Capitol Limited only one time!! The layover in Pittsburgh

was most uncomfortable. I have also selected the Cardinal or Lake Shore Limited when traveling to Chicago and

have avoided the Pittsburgh connection in both directions.

I think if additional service between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh is needed, that should be the route.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Well what they do now with the Penny is pull into track 3 which is a spur and then wye the train around 8:45pm, only to return back to track 3 but facing the correct direction for the next morning's train. If they continue to pull into Track 3 after this PIP, then they'll need to back out onto Track 1, pull into Track 1A to set out the through cars, pull forward onto Track 1, and then back to Turtle Creek for the wye operation. (I'm sure they wouldn't take the through cars out to Turtle Creek for the wye unless they were absolutely in the wrong order).

If they pull into Track 1A as the PIP describes as a possibility, then you have passengers walking over the NS eastbound main (Track 1). Operationally, pulling into Track 1A on arrival is the least complicated move... but from a liability standpoint, I am 100% certain Amtrak doesn't want passengers stumbling over that NS mainline. I suppose they could arrive on Track 1, and then NS could divert onto 1A, but the speed would have to be extra slow.

The15 mile backup move I described is for the Penny only to turn the train for the next morning's run. If I somehow implied that they were turning the Cap Ltd., I'm sorry, that was not my intention.

I live and work next to these lines and ride them frequently. A mile east of Pittsburgh station, the lines the Cap and Penny run on diverge. About 7 miles outside of town, they come back together to run parallel for about 3 miles before going their separate ways for the rest of their routes. I live along this 3 mile section of the route.

I'm pretty familiar with the operations.

Again, I'm not familiar enough with things to describe things properly. But the bottom line is that the plan means minimial extra movements on the part of all trains. Whatever they currently do to turn the Pennsy will continue to happen, without being impacted by the setout cars, other than to set them out.

So bottom line, Pennsy pulls in and discharges pax like normal. Then it drops off the through cars, before performing the rest of its normal routine upon arrival. Cap pulls in, engines & bag cut off to pickup setouts, then return to couple up with the rest of the train.

Reversing things, arriving cap dumps off through cars, when crew of Pennsy arrives, they hook on the turned consist to the through cars. Amtrak wouldn't be considering this idea if it was going to required major 15 mile moves to deal with these setout cars. Yes, it adds a bit more work, but not huge amounts of work. And the benefit will outweigh that work.

Yoi and double yoi! The 15 mile turns on the Penny are there already and will continue to be there Viewliner or not and I specifically said they wouldn't take the through cars with them to turn the train. "Penny pulls in like normal" means that it pulls into track three, which is a stub, spur, whatever you want to call it... it CANNOT pull forward without ending up in the lobby. In order to get the Viewliners in position for the Capitol, it must back onto the NS main and then pull forward into Track 1A. There is no other way to get the Viewliners from Track 3 (where it lands today) onto Track 1A without doing this.

The eastbound drop/pickup of through cars is a much easier maneuver.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

1. They are already selling out this train with some regularity. Due to the maneuver time/costs I described above, it is far more bang for the buck to add more Superliners in WAS and skip the switchouts. (not that Amtrak has the Superliners... but I digress), and despite the high buckets and regular sellouts, they are still managing to lose vast amount of money on this route.

Like you said, no Superliners available, and they lose money on every LD route.
 

The statement that they lose 40% of passengers if they have to change trains. If they have to change trains in Pittsburgh, that number is likely to be much higher, but people on the NEC are used to changing trains. A two hour skip down to DC for $35 or a 1.5 hour skip to to NYP for the Lakeshore really isn't that big of a deal. They'd spend more time in Philly International Airport getting fondled by the TSA. Are people in NYC really itching for better sleeper service to Chicago? Fix the Lake Shore before trying to tag cars onto the Penny.

The ridership of the Cardinal exploded when they dropped the Superliners and went one seat to NYP. I think that Alan has some other examples of where providing a one seat ride has made massive improvements in ridership. You might not agree with it, and you might not mind forcing other people to change trains, but you can't change the facts.
 

This "Rescheduling the Capitol Limited so that it could operate with two sets of equipment instead of three – This would be done by scheduling the trains to "turn" the eastbound train for the westbound on the same day (versus next day) at Washington DC. Equipment costs saved by this possibility, however, were outweighed by revenue losses that stemmed from serving Pittsburgh (and connecting passengers) at even more inconvenient times." is a great way to destroy on time performance. They tried the "turn the equipment same day" trick and given that the Capitol is never on time into D.C. and usually hours off schedule. It would end up a cascade of permanent lateness.

Which is why they're not doing it.
 

This: "These would be in addition to a base Pennsylvanian train consist of one P-42 diesel electric locomotive and two or three coaches" is out of date. The Pennsylvanian is currently up to 5 coaches plus a food service car. If you want to put a Viewliner and two more Amfleets on there then Amtrak is probably going to need another P-42 to drag that consist over the Allegheny Mountains. Strangely, the Foodservice car goes on through to Chicago in the Performance Improvement Plan, but I can't figure out why.

It's not out of date, it lists what the consist WOULD BE. You wouldn't need the extra P42 because the train would be the same length (or one car longer) as it is today. The food service car would be helpful to serve the extra passengers on the combined train.
 

The "Performance Improvement Plan" for the Cap Ltd. loses even more money than the Capitol Ltd does now!! They predict that doing this plan the losses will go from $21.1 million to $21.8 million!

Providing much better service for only $700,000? Sounds like a bargain to me.

2. Then run the through cars on the NEC from NYP or Philly down to WAS. You have have a later scheduled departure and still be on the back of the Capitol in time for tea. No track work needed and WAS is a more capable station for the switching move.

4. I went back an re-read that part and you are correct. They are pulling the cars off of the main Pennsylvanian consists to turn them into through cars.

 

[jis]

I really wish we could shift focus AWAY from this through sleeper idea and instead focus on more frequent service between Pittsburgh and points east. If you really really really need to get from PHL to CHI with sleeper service, spend the $35 on any of the 8 North East Regionals that can get you to WAS before the Cap. Ltd. departs. The Pennsylvanian needs to terminate at PHL and be run twice daily across the state. This would eliminate an engine change and free up two slots on the NEC for additional Regional or Acela service. Philadelphia is a big station and I'm a big boy. I can find my way to another train if I want to continue to NYP, NHV, BOS, or WAS.

There is no shortage of slots on the NEC at the time that the Pennsylvanian runs. Looks like a solution looking for a problem. My fearless prediction... the Pennsylvanian will not get terminated in Philadelphia no matter how much you might wish so.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

They can run it all the way to Bangor Maine if they want to. The end goal is more frequent service with the minimal increase in equipment requirements. Keeping the timetable shorter and eliminating an engine change was the only reason for my proposal of ending the Penny at PHL instead of NYP.

 

[Ryan]

2. Then run the through cars on the NEC from NYP or Philly down to WAS. You have have a later scheduled departure and still be on the back of the Capitol in time for tea. No track work needed and WAS is a more capable station for the switching move.

That does nothing to provide one seat service to the people between PHL and PGH.

As far as the maneuver goes, I'm not sure what exactly the issue that you're seeing is.

But that mean either they are going to pull the westbound Penny into track 1A and have people walking across the Norfolk Southern mainline at 8pm, or they'll pull it into track 3 like they do today, let people off. Back out over track 1 (the NS Main) pull onto track 1a, drop the through cars, pull back out onto track 1, then back the 15 miles into Turtle Creek for the wye operation and then back into town to park on their spur overnight.

How are either of these "a huge mess"? The only change from how things currently go is to have the Pennsy go through 1A and drop the through cars - not something that will take a lot of time at all.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

2. Then run the through cars on the NEC from NYP or Philly down to WAS. You have have a later scheduled departure and still be on the back of the Capitol in time for tea. No track work needed and WAS is a more capable station for the switching move.

That does nothing to provide one seat service to the people between PHL and PGH.

If the Viewliner gets picked up by the Cap in WAS instead of PGH, that isn't one seat service?

 

[Ryan]

Not if you want to get into that Viewliner in Harrisburg.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Bah! Of course there had to be a point to the plan that I had missed. I withdraw my objections.... as long I can still get twice daily service out of PGH heading east.

 

[Trogdor]

On what NEC train were you planning on adding this through Viewliner? Most of the Regionals come from north of New York during the period when you'd need to add this car, and you sure as heck aren't going to switch cars on a through train at NYP.

Most of those that don't go past NYP are coming from south of WAS, so you are adding complicated switching moves to the process. Not to mention that you'd get people to New York later (or make them leave New York earlier) than the Pennsylvanian.

 

[afigg]

Not if you want to get into that Viewliner in Harrisburg.

And Paoli, Lancaster, Elisabethtown, Altoona, etc.

Slow as it is west of Harrisburg, the trip time for the Pennsylvanian from PHL to PGH is 7:23. The trip time from PHL to WAS is abour 2 hours on a Regional, add in a layover for a switch, then on the Capitol Limited from WAS to PGH is 7:43. Not hard to see why Amtrak is looking to restore direct LD service to Chicago via the Keystone route, although adding through single level cars to the CL is a rather awkward way to do so.

Might work better if there was a 2nd daily Pennsylvanian (or under a new name) that left PHL later to have a much shorter layover in PGH to switch to the CL. In this scenario, the current Pennsylvanian would be moved earlier in the day, maybe switching slots with the 643/663 Keystone, leaving NYP around 9:30 AM or earlier.

The problem with the switch plan in PGH is that it makes the eastbound Pennsylvanian dependent on the CL getting to PGH no more than several hours late. The Pennsylvanian is one of Amtrak's best on-time performance trains, having it wait on the CL could hurt the PGH to PHL and NYP ridership over time. Restoring the Three Rivers, once most of the Viewliner 2s have been delivered, as it's own train all the way to Chicago would avoid the complexities of the schedule keeping and the mixed single / bi-level train. Perhaps in 2-3 years, the funding atmosphere in Congress for LD trains will be less toxic.