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

[Oldsmoboi]

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.

I like this idea best

 

[jis]

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.

Let's stop being silly, shall we? Do you really think Bangor, Maine will provide the O/D traffic that New York does?

Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.

A P42 should have absolutely zero problem pulling a 7 or even 8 car single level train. So no additional P42 will be required.

As for passengers having to cross NS Main in Pitsburgh? Surely you jest! Passengers routinely cross mains at many stations to get to the train. Blocking a main for passenger operations is a well known, tried and tested technique. Besides the Amtrak plan does not involve anyone having to cross a main anyway.

The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's. Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.

 

[jis]

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.

That's true. But there will not be such until Pennsylvania comes up with the funds for it.

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.

There still would continue to be a shortage of Amfleet IIs to create an entirely new daily LD train though. Also NS and CSX may have a thing or two to say about adding another train to the Water Level Route between Cleveland and Chicago. And they would probably all be chasing each others markers down the line anyway,since it is less disruptive to freight that way. I would be very pleasantly surprised if a fourth frequency is started to Chicago from the Northeast, after the Cardinal manages to go daily.

 

[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.

Let's stop being silly, shall we? Do you really think Bangor, Maine will provide the O/D traffic that New York does?

Sorry, I forgot my sarcasm tags

Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.

Why? 30 minutes in the schedule and with cutting it off in PHL, they could actually turn the train for another trip back.

A P42 should have absolutely zero problem pulling a 7 or even 8 car single level train. So no additional P42 will be required.

I already realized and addressed my mistake above. I didn't realize some of the existing consist of the Penny would be making the through trip.

As for passengers having to cross NS Main in Pitsburgh? Surely you jest! Passengers routinely cross mains at many stations to get to the train. Blocking a main for passenger operations is a well known, tried and tested technique. Besides the Amtrak plan does not involve anyone having to cross a main anyway.

Is address as an either/or scenario with:

The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's. Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.

Most likely, I see them "landing" in Track 1 on arrival. Disembarking the riders, dropping off the through cars in 1A, and then heading off for the turning move to back into Track 3 for the night. It would be incorrect to say that operations would continue the same as they are today. It would also be incorrect to suggest that this won't be an inconvenience to the NS during one of their prime traffic times.

 

[afigg]

That's true. But there will not be such until Pennsylvania comes up with the funds for it.

Don't know the position of the current PA Governor is on passenger raail, but with Amtrak providing high frequency of service to Harrisburg, the state capital, and the state providing funding for 13-14 daily Keystones, they should be able to find the money for a 2nd Pennsylvanian if pushed on it.

There still would continue to be a shortage of Amfleet IIs to create an entirely new daily LD train though. Also NS and CSX may have a thing or two to say about adding another train to the Water Level Route between Cleveland and Chicago. And they would probably all be chasing each others markers down the line anyway,since it is less disruptive to freight that way. I would be very pleasantly surprised if a fourth frequency is started to Chicago from the Northeast, after the Cardinal manages to go daily.

Amtrak has the same number of Amfleet IIs back when they were running the Three Rivers in 2005. And the Montrealer (which I assume ran with A IIs). Did the Amfleet IIs coach cars get reassigned to long range daytime trains? I should search for a breakdown of the trains with the A IIs coach cars.

If there was a more positive environment in the House for Amtrak, Amtrak could be speaking quietly to the Senators from NY about how they would use rolling stock equipment funding to buy up to 210 more Viewliner 2s from CAF (jobs in NY!). Talk to the Senators and politicos in VT how they need funding to buy new equipment for LD trains if VT wants to run overnight trains to Montreal. Talk to the WV Senators about how new equipment would help the Cardinal go daily and so on.

A LD fleet comprised entirely of Viewliners I and IIs would lower maintenance overhead. At ~ $2.3 million each for the 130 Viewliner II order, the price is hard to beat. Of course this won't happen, but a V II order of 150 LD coach cars, 20 cars made up of a mix of the current baggage, baggage-dorms, diners, sleepers to expand the base, 20 "light" diners/cafes to replace the A II diners in day train use, and 20 single level sightseer lounge type cars for the scenic eastern routes should do the trick. Just need to find $500 to $600 million to pay for it. :lol:

 

[AlanB]

That's true. But there will not be such until Pennsylvania comes up with the funds for it.

Don't know the position of the current PA Governor is on passenger raail, but with Amtrak providing high frequency of service to Harrisburg, the state capital, and the state providing funding for 13-14 daily Keystones, they should be able to find the money for a 2nd Pennsylvanian if pushed on it.

There still would continue to be a shortage of Amfleet IIs to create an entirely new daily LD train though. Also NS and CSX may have a thing or two to say about adding another train to the Water Level Route between Cleveland and Chicago. And they would probably all be chasing each others markers down the line anyway,since it is less disruptive to freight that way. I would be very pleasantly surprised if a fourth frequency is started to Chicago from the Northeast, after the Cardinal manages to go daily.

Amtrak has the same number of Amfleet IIs back when they were running the Three Rivers in 2005. And the Montrealer (which I assume ran with A IIs). Did the Amfleet IIs coach cars get reassigned to long range daytime trains? I should search for a breakdown of the trains with the A IIs coach cars.

Yes, there are AMF II's now on the Adirondack, Maple Leaf, and IIRC it was around 2004/2005 that the Cardinal went single level.

 

[Trogdor]

The Cardinal went single-level in 2002.

The Three Rivers actually used the long-distance Horizon coaches (well, really, it used a mix of those and Amfleet IIs), which have since been converted to short-distance cars.

 

[jis]

Speaking of completely off the wall wild ideas, maybe Amtrak can take the 6 or so ACES single level height MLVs that are going to become available come end of fall this year and use them on the medium distance trains to release 6 Amfleet IIs for use on an LD train . The seats are going to be a bit cramped but no worse than Acela BC. No I am not really serious

The other possibility is to get hold of Comet IIIs that NJT is getting rid of and put in LD seats in them

 

[jis]

Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.

Why? 30 minutes in the schedule and with cutting it off in PHL, they could actually turn the train for another trip back.

Continuing on the sarcasm theme, they could turn it at Harrisburg and transfer everyone to a Keystone there and actually run a complete second round trip to Pittsburgh too. But they won't do that either.

The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's. Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.

Most likely, I see them "landing" in Track 1 on arrival. Disembarking the riders, dropping off the through cars in 1A, and then heading off for the turning move to back into Track 3 for the night. It would be incorrect to say that operations would continue the same as they are today. It would also be incorrect to suggest that this won't be an inconvenience to the NS during one of their prime traffic times.

Sure. But the best way to stop inconveniencing NS is to stop running any train from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh too..... continuing on the sarcasm theme of course... . I simply don't see how 15 - 20 mins of additional track occupancy is going to be such a big deal, when the plan is to eventually foist a second train on them.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Why is an engine change such a huge consideration? Seems to me like you are now reaching to try to come up with mostly bogus arguments to support an unsupportable position. Where exactly is this equipment going to go in the three hours saved in not going to NYP? Remember that it is the Commonwealth that wanted more than half the Keystones to go to New York so that they could cut down the need for subsidy for the Keystone Service Do you really expect Amtrak to unilaterally eat the loss of a significant proportion of New York passengers? Any additional PGH frequency could conceivably terminate in Philly, but I simply do not see a single frequency terminating at Philly.

Why? 30 minutes in the schedule and with cutting it off in PHL, they could actually turn the train for another trip back.

Continuing on the sarcasm theme, they could turn it at Harrisburg and transfer everyone to a Keystone there and actually run a complete second round trip to Pittsburgh too. But they won't do that either.

The convoluted scheme that you came up with can entirely be credited to your imagination, not Amtrak's. Joe Versaggi from the NARP Executive Council, who originally proposed this to Amtrak had the entire scheme worked out, and he is exceedingly familiar with historical and current operations at Pittsburgh. The Amtrak proposal is substantially based on what he submitted to Amtrak. Trust me, it works fine and does not have any of the pitfalls that you have imagined. The entire switching operation in PGH can be carried out by the road crew using no additional power, and very little additional time.

Most likely, I see them "landing" in Track 1 on arrival. Disembarking the riders, dropping off the through cars in 1A, and then heading off for the turning move to back into Track 3 for the night. It would be incorrect to say that operations would continue the same as they are today. It would also be incorrect to suggest that this won't be an inconvenience to the NS during one of their prime traffic times.

Sure. But the best way to stop inconveniencing NS is to stop running any train from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh too..... continuing on the sarcasm theme of course... . I simply don't see how 15 - 20 mins of additional track occupancy is going to be such a big deal, when the plan is to eventually foist a second train on them.

Timing. 5pm to 9pm appears to be a fairly major rush hour for the NS over this part of their line. They get a lot of rolling done first thing in the morning too, but then it things out a bit until 5. The only reason I know this is because the line is directly under my office window and I hear each and every train go by.

and actually, the best thing for the NS to do would be to bring back one of the abandoned tracks through the station as their main through point connecting back to track 1 about half a mile further out of the station in addition to reconnecting the west end of track 1A. The room is there for it, there is nothing in the way that would need to be moved, and then Amtrak could have tracks 1, 1A, 3, and 4. all to themselves, the switching and loading operations for any Amtrak train wouldn't bother the NS one bit.

 

[jis]

Timing. 5pm to 9pm appears to be a fairly major rush hour for the NS over this part of their line. They get a lot of rolling done first thing in the morning too, but then it things out a bit until 5. The only reason I know this is because the line is directly under my office window and I hear each and every train go by.

and actually, the best thing for the NS to do would be to bring back one of the abandoned tracks through the station as their main through point connecting back to track 1 about half a mile further out of the station in addition to reconnecting the west end of track 1A. The room is there for it, there is nothing in the way that would need to be moved, and then Amtrak could have tracks 1, 1A, 3, and 4. all to themselves, the switching and loading operations for any Amtrak train wouldn't bother the NS one bit.

That makes sense.

 

[Nickrapak]

Don't forget, according to section 209 of PRIIA, any corridor under 750 miles must be state-supported. Wouldn't making the Pennsylvanian an "extension" of the CL cause it to not fall under section 209, and therefore not require a state subsidy? Of course I may be totally off-base here.

Personally, I think the Three Rivers should be reinstated, providing service alternate that of the Pennsy. That way, there can be both a morning and evening train in both Pennsylvania cities while still maintaining a Chicago connection.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

So I was thinking about this today.

Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.

Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.

 

[jis]

So I was thinking about this today.

Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.

Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.

That will depend entirely on how they think they can maximize revenue. Hard to say anything as a general rule. If their expectation is to be able to sell through new York or Philly passengers on it, they might withhold accommodation on them to PGH from CHI. Afterall it will have a different train number and will be sold as a different train.

 

[afigg]

Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.

Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.

Good question. Don't see why Amtrak would not sell Viewliner rooms between Pittsburgh & Chicago, although they would want to steer people to the Superliner rooms to keep rooms open for NYP-PHL-HAR passengers. The sales and revenue management strategy for the mixed trainset could get a little complicated. Will have to make it clear to on-line ticket buyers what they are getting. Same issue goes for the Amfleet II coach cars to an extent. When or if they start this combined train, might block out all Viewliner room sales from Pittsburgh to CHI until they get a handle on the demand from/to east of Pittsburgh.

 

[Ryan]

If you charge the same price for a room from NYP-CHI (via the Pennsy and Cap) as you do for a room PGH-CHI (in the Viewliner), Amtrak wouldn't care which one of you bought the room.

That'll serve to steer customers to the "cheap" rooms in the Superliner section, but make them available if someone is willing to pay the price.

 

[Oldsmoboi]

Should be interesting searching this via Amsnag once it becomes available.

 

[Anderson]

So I was thinking about this today.

Say I'm here in Pittsburgh and I want sleeper service to Chicago. There are no available rooms on the Capitol, but there is a Roomette or Bedroom on the Viewliner available. Would Amtrak still sell that to me for the ride to Pittsburgh? Likewise heading back to Pittsburgh from Chicago.

Pretend, for the sake of this question, that every single room on the Superliners is booked by a WAS-CHI or vice versa passenger.

That will depend entirely on how they think they can maximize revenue. Hard to say anything as a general rule. If their expectation is to be able to sell through new York or Philly passengers on it, they might withhold accommodation on them to PGH from CHI. Afterall it will have a different train number and will be sold as a different train.

They might barrier it, but what is more likely is what they do with the TE/SL through cars: Charge more for the same short-distance seat because of bucket allocations. Of course, there's a tactic to be had in steering PGH folks to the Viewliner: If the Cap is selling out because of capacity problems CHI-PGH but it still has space PGH-WAS, then getting folks onto the Penny section would free up space CHI-WAS. Looking at the PIP, 14% of Cap traffic is CHI-PGH but only 7% is PGH-WAS, suggesting that half of the slots emptied at PGH aren't filled further on. Considering the massive share of endpoint business involved, "bleeding off" some CHI-PGH traffic from the main train would likely bring in some more CHI-WAS traffic. And of course, depending on how the Pennsylvanian is doing capacity-wise (I have no idea here), those seats which free up at PGH can be resold on the Pennsylvanian PGH-PHL/NYP (and in effect, your rooms can be "sold twice": Once for CHI-PGH and once as, in effect, first class accommodations through PA...thus getting two accommodation charges out of that room[ette]).

Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers and additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).

 

[abcnews]

I sometimes get my facts mixed up - but I'm thinking that we recently heard that the plan now is just one car - a Viewliner. No through Amfleet coaches or Cafe cars. Coach passengers will change trains in Pittsburgh. Just one through Viewliner sleeper and nothing else.

Your basic "Twilight Shoreliner from NYP to Pitt, and then the Viewliner gets transferred onto the Capital Limited.

 

[Donctor]

Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers and additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).

Does Amtrak currently have the equipment for this?

 

[Anderson]

Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers and additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).

Does Amtrak currently have the equipment for this?

At this exact moment, no. However, I would point out that even the Cap's PIP requires that the new Viewliner sleepers get delivered. You could easily tap that pool (25 Viewliner sleepers) for the needed equipment (probably 6 sleepers: You'd need 4 for the Florida-bound sets, but you'd only need two for the Cap's leg of things), especially if the decision is made not to re-extend the Palmetto or to split the Broadway off on its own.

The biggest jam is "Which train do we link it to?" The Star is good southbound (the Cap would arrive into WAS at 12:40 PM and the Star departs at 3:00 PM), but northbound that link is too tight (3:14 PM in, 4:05 out). On the other hand, the Meteor involves some nasty delays (SB, it's a 6.5 hour layover; NB, it's close to 9 hours), and Amtrak wants to split the Meteor in Florida to run down the FEC if possible (which would complicate things immensely). That said, making this a sleeper-only option in light of the length of the layover/stop might work...you'd just need to run the sleepers on the back of the Meteor instead of the front to ease the shuffle.

Mike: My understanding is that they'd run a coach, a Viewliner, and the cafe through. Mind you, the cafe wouldn't be an "added" cafe set...it would just be the Penny's cafe going on a ride out west and then getting returned, so I think you only netted a single cafe car in terms of required equipment. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard to simply not transfer the cafe, but I think that might run into some ADA issues.

 

[jis]

Mike: My understanding is that they'd run a coach, a Viewliner, and the cafe through. Mind you, the cafe wouldn't be an "added" cafe set...it would just be the Penny's cafe going on a ride out west and then getting returned, so I think you only netted a single cafe car in terms of required equipment. Of course, it wouldn't be too hard to simply not transfer the cafe, but I think that might run into some ADA issues.

The proposal is AFAIR for cafe, Viewliner, and two Amfleet IIs I believe. I have not heard anything about not sending through coaches. I have heard about the possibility of starting the through service only with coaches and cafe and add the Viewliner later.

 

[Penn]

the most capable station for a move is Philadelphia. When the new viewliners come online, make the capitol viewliner only, break the train in philly, and send some cares north to ny and some south to washington and scrap the slow trek through nowhere that is WAS-PGH.move the superliners over to the cardinal which would now depart from washington and any extra superliners could be used in the west.

 

[afigg]

Now, I'm wondering why, with all of the "run the Cap to Florida" chatter that Amtrak has considered, they aren't seriously considering a second "through section" from the Cap to the Meteor. As it stands, again, CHI-WAS business is the Cap's biggest item, they're already adding a Viewliner/Amfleet set to the Cap anyway (so the train is split as it stands), and doing so would likely both accommodate through passengers and additional CHI-WAS and WAS-Florida business (and it's not like the Meteor is hurting for folks piling on in WAS...there's plenty of this business).

Does Amtrak currently have the equipment for this?

No. The key problem with passing connecting cars from the CL to the Silver Meteor is that an increasingly reliable on time system is needed the more connections there are. And the LD train system right now does not have reliable OTP. Period. The LD trains going to and from Chicago are constantly running late or getting delayed on the lines to the west and the CL & LSL to the east.

The Pennsylvanian is pretty reliable so passing a set of connecting cars to the westbound CL should be fine most of the time. What Amtrak will do to the eastbound Pennsylvanian if the CL from CHI is running very late remains to be seen. Hold it 2-3 hours and tick off those getting on in Pittsburgh and waiting for the train at Johnstown or Altoona? But that is just one connection.

Add another car swap connection at WAS to the Silver Meteor? Add more swap moves at a busy Union Station in DC? Ok, sure. However, any serious delays to the Meteor or the CL affects equipment moves and availability to two LD trains. If the CL is running so late that a southbound SM can't wait and is sent on, what happens on the return northbound leg for passengers at Charleston or in FL who had brought tickets to the connecting train, but the cars are not there because they were never sent south and the rest of the northbound SM rooms are sold out. Ok, sure Hialeah could keep enough Viewliners and Amfleets on hand to cover this situation, but now additional reserve standby equipment is needed.

If people want to connect from the CL to a Silver train, they can get off the train and wait in Union Station in DC. There are worse stations to spend a few hours at.

 

[jis]

afigg has hit the nail on the head.

In case of the Pennsylvanian, even if the cars don't make it through one day, it is just a daytime ride from NYP to PGH and a few additional Amfleets can usually be arranged in NYP. But with the SM it involves a night time ride where Sleeping accommodation actually matters way more than in a daytime substitution. Also there is several hours of leeway on the eastbound Pennsy before delaying it becomes untenable. The knock-on effects get absorbed at NYP. OTOH the knock on effect of an SM entering CSX way out of slot is way more unpredictable with all its single track sections, than on NS with all double and triple track railroad.

That in a nutshell is also the real reason that all proposals for a Cap run through to Florida has never come to fruition and is unlikely that it ever will. It is cheaper to put up a few people in a hotel occasionally than to find entire substitute consists to cover for delays.