Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

Re: Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

Postby Arlington » Mon May 27, 2013 10:56 am
Is there any word yet on whether ROA will be built to overnight just 1 train, or would they go ahead and make it 2? My first guess is that ROA can't "afford" 2, mostly because of the economics of finding trainsets. Recall that a lot of what makes Amtrak Virginia "work" is the low cost of extending NEC trains on the shoulders of their day (when the train would be idle or poorly used), plus the revenue benefit of having Virginians fill empty "midday" seats on the NEC>

The NEC didn't need any more trains in the 5am to 8am time window or 6pm to Midnight, but Virginia has been a great place to put these "free" trainsets to work when they'd otherwise be (mostly) idle...starting northbound in the wee hours of the morning and returning back after NEC primetime.

So Virginia is also a great place to have trains layover overnight, and has shown that trains can start earning money as early as 5am (e.g. NFK). From this, it seems like Amtrak Virginia would want to berth a train everyplace that could support a 5am Start (LYH, RIC, NFK and NPN...with ROA in the future, and probably someplace to serve CVS with a 6am start, either CVS itself or Clifton Forge (or work with West Virginia to start at White Sulphur Springs) .

Based on the success of 5am trains from NFK to WAS, it seems pretty clear to me that when Roanoke comes online its first train will simply be an extension of today's 176 (which will start in ROA at about 6:20am instead of LYH, where it starts at a leisurely 7:38 .

That will free up the Layover at LYH for a new Rapahannock "supercommuter" train to DC that could depart an hour before the Crescent and work similarly to the NFK train, in that it gets riders to DC in time for a true full day. A 5am LYH start to train 184 (which, today is a 9:00 am northbound start from WAS) would look like:

NB -ROA- - -LYH- - -CVS- AR -WAS
DP ------- - 05:00 - 06:12 AR 08:40 NER #184...to PHL by 11:12a and NYP by 12:40p, where it would terminate)
DP ------- - 05:56 - 07:09 AR 09:53 Crescent #20
DP 06:20 - 07:38 - 08:52 AR 11:20 NER #176 started farther South
DP ------- - ------ - 14:53 AR 17:30 Cardinal (SuWeFr only)
DP 15:30 - 16:50 - 18:00 AR 20:30 * Hypothetical far-future ROA Daytime Turn

Meanwhile, we don't know where the Southbound trains would "come from" but an extension of train 185 has been discussed:
SB -NYP- - -WAS- - -CVS- - -LYH- - -ROA
DP -------- 09:30- - 12:00 - 13:10 - 14:30 *Hypothetical far-future ROA Daytime Turn
DP 06:45 - 11:05 - 13:55 ------------------ Cardinal #51 (SuWeFr only)
DP 08:10 - 11:30 - 14:00 - 15:10 --------- NER #185 Extended (paired with 184 for rotation)
DP 12:55 - 16:50 - 19:23 - 20:36 - 22:00 NER #171 Extended (paired with 176 for rotation)
DP 14:15 - 18:30 - 20:52 - 22:00 --------- Crescent #19

About that Daytime ROA turn. The advantage is that it would operate at the opposite ends of the day from existing trains. But in doing so, loses the trainset utilization benefits and has one, big, economic problem: it would have to steal a trainset from elsewhere in the Amtrak system. It probably can't "outbid" any existing midday use on the NEC (there's just too much money between the big cities). So a ROA daytime train would have to "outbid" some other current non-NEC use of NEC-capable equipment. PRIIA is going to have to trim a trainset from someplace else before that happens.

First of all, VA is a horrible place for trains to layover since there are no real facilities in place. You end up needing to yogi the equipment on the turnarounds to make sure they receive their proper inspections.

That being said, I like the way you are thinking here. Your turns are spot on. PD196-ND185 to ND184=129 to WAS= proper inspection with calendar day AND pit time in two!! I have a question about your proposed hypothetical round trips. Are you looking for a same day turn at ROA for your two daylight trains? If you are, I find the timing problematic. You've only given yourself an hour to accomplish this.

[quote="ThirdRail7]I have a question about your proposed hypothetical round trips. Are you looking for a same day turn at ROA for your two daylight trains? If you are, I find the timing problematic. You've only given yourself an hour to accomplish this.[/quote]
Ok, depending on how much extra time it would take, I'd push the AM WAS departure earlier for "most" of it and try to keep the evening return about the same. I'm doubtful it would happen unless there's suddenly a lot of NEC-capable equipment freed up by PRIIA that Amtrak or Amtrak Virginia is suddenly looking to throw it into new markets.

Where I'd have to agree that the next 2 new trains Amtrak Virginia gets will be 2 trains for NFK (too "perfect" a market...large population, bad auto congestion at both ends (WAS and Hampton Roads), and military-industrial travel affinities), I'd say the next ones after that are: 1) a "backfill" at LYH (as today's trainset spends its nights at ROA) and then 2) if there were more trains than primetime on the NEC could handle a daylight out-and-back from WAS - ROA and back. If only "shoulder" time is available, then I do think Virginia (and West Virginia) should see where another train could be overnighted on the Cardinal route to serve CVS one more time each day.

Do I read the Cardinal Schedule correctly to see crew changes when I see the long holds at Huntington WV and Charlottesville VA?
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/149/302/Car ... 011413.pdf

If Charlottesville is already a crew base for the Cardinal (is it?), I'd be tempted to build a siding there and give CVS its own early AM train once ROA and LYH have theirs. Either that and get West Virginia (or the Greenbrier and Homestead) to pay up for a state supported train that overnighted in White Sulfur Springs or Huntington.

This question has been on my mind for about a week now and as it's partially related to the Lynchburg/Roanoke trains, hope it can go here. I know Virginia would eventually like to extend a "reverse-peak" Regional along their corridor, but if the right train was extended, what would it take to extend it to Atlanta as a daylight Crescent? From a strictly schedule standpoint, I personally see three options for daylight NYP-ATL southbound service during the week: Regional 151, 111, and 181. Their times NYP, WAS, ATL are 4:40, 8:15, 21:58 for 151; 5:30, 8:45, 22:28 for 111; and 6:05, 9:44, 23:27 for 181. Going Northbound, I could see the schedule of Regional 188, or 198 used which would call at ATL, WAS, NYP at: 5:27, 19:10, 22:43 for 188; and 7:02, 20:45, and 0:10 for 198. Obviously, they wouldn't be Regionals, and wouldn't hold these numbers of course, and a major holdup is Atlanta's station. But if those issues were solved, what would be required in extending these trains down to Atlanta? This would also give the Virgnia "Lynchburger" cities a morning south, evening north train as well as bringing another Washington train to Charlotte arriving southbound at either 16:05, 16:35, or 17:34, and northbound at 10:44, or 12:19. One thing to do in Charlotte, is time the midday Piedmont departure to allow transfer to/from the daylight Crescent westbound and eastbound respectively, for people from south of Charlotte heading to Raleigh and intermediate cities. Another issue I could see is equipment. Just running a regional longer means up to a 17 hour trip in Amfleet Is. As someone with very long legs and thus seat problems in other vehicles, I personally don't see a problem with this. On my admittedly one experience with them (NYP-Route 128), they were very roomy. Not as much as the Amfleet IIs of course, but I wouldn't mind riding in them on a much extended trip.

Then of course there's the real question of equipment. Amtrak isn't exactly flush with either coaches, or diesels. Could they afford to run two extra Regional consists off the corridor all day long? Would NS demand two diesels like the regular Crescent or could Amtrak get away with one like the Palmetto and Carolinian? Unignoring the issue of funding, is who would pay for this? Boardman has basically said that until Congress directs him to and provides the funding, no more LD trains, and Virginia is certainly not paying for a train all the way to Atlanta. NC Might put a few bucks up to get it to Charlotte, but again not Atlanta and I highly doubt that SC would contribute anything (express it through Clemson and Greenville then? ). So that pretty much would leave Georgia as having to step up to the plate to pay for it if it could even technically happen.

Re: Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)
by MattW » Tue May 28, 2013 12:34 am

This question has been on my mind for about a week now and as it's partially related to the Lynchburg/Roanoke trains, hope it can go here. I know Virginia would eventually like to extend a "reverse-peak" Regional along their corridor, but if the right train was extended, what would it take to extend it to Atlanta as a daylight Crescent? From a strictly schedule standpoint, I personally see three options for daylight NYP-ATL southbound service during the week: Regional 151, 111, and 181. Their times NYP, WAS, ATL are 4:40, 8:15, 21:58 for 151; 5:30, 8:45, 22:28 for 111; and 6:05, 9:44, 23:27 for 181. Going Northbound, I could see the schedule of Regional 188, or 198 used which would call at ATL, WAS, NYP at: 5:27, 19:10, 22:43 for 188; and 7:02, 20:45, and 0:10 for 198. Obviously, they wouldn't be Regionals, and wouldn't hold these numbers of course, and a major holdup is Atlanta's station. But if those issues were solved, what would be required in extending these trains down to Atlanta? This would also give the Virgnia "Lynchburger" cities a morning south, evening north train as well as bringing another Washington train to Charlotte arriving southbound at either 16:05, 16:35, or 17:34, and northbound at 10:44, or 12:19. One thing to do in Charlotte, is time the midday Piedmont departure to allow transfer to/from the daylight Crescent westbound and eastbound respectively, for people from south of Charlotte heading to Raleigh and intermediate cities. Another issue I could see is equipment. Just running a regional longer means up to a 17 hour trip in Amfleet Is. As someone with very long legs and thus seat problems in other vehicles, I personally don't see a problem with this. On my admittedly one experience with them (NYP-Route 128), they were very roomy. Not as much as the Amfleet IIs of course, but I wouldn't mind riding in them on a much extended trip.

Then of course there's the real question of equipment. Amtrak isn't exactly flush with either coaches, or diesels. Could they afford to run two extra Regional consists off the corridor all day long? Would NS demand two diesels like the regular Crescent or could Amtrak get away with one like the Palmetto and Carolinian? Unignoring the issue of funding, is who would pay for this? Boardman has basically said that until Congress directs him to and provides the funding, no more LD trains, and Virginia is certainly not paying for a train all the way to Atlanta. NC Might put a few bucks up to get it to Charlotte, but again not Atlanta and I highly doubt that SC would contribute anything (express it through Clemson and Greenville then? ). So that pretty much would leave Georgia as having to step up to the plate to pay for it if it could even technically happen.MattW

The ROA service is a real proposal. This ATL stuff has very little to do with it. Even if someone is on board, what makes you think they'd send a train to ROA to get to ATL? Additionally, it's called REGIONAL service for a reason. This proposal would hardly qualify as a regional train.

Perhaps this post could be moved to Mr Arlington's thread on the same matter for further discussion: Scrap Crescent/Silvers in favor of day trains?

There are numerous ideas for Atlanta service in this thread.

This manual quoting is for the birds!

[quote="ThirdRail7]I have a question about your proposed hypothetical round trips. Are you looking for a same day turn at ROA for your two daylight trains? If you are, I find the timing problematic. You've only given yourself an hour to accomplish this.

Ok, depending on how much extra time it would take, I'd push the AM WAS departure earlier for "most" of it and try to keep the evening return about the same. I'm doubtful it would happen unless there's suddenly a lot of NEC-capable equipment freed up by PRIIA that Amtrak or Amtrak Virginia is suddenly looking to throw it into new markets.

Where I'd have to agree that the next 2 new trains Amtrak Virginia gets will be 2 trains for NFK (too "perfect" a market...large population, bad auto congestion at both ends (WAS and Hampton Roads), and military-industrial travel affinities), I'd say the next ones after that are: 1) a "backfill" at LYH (as today's trainset spends its nights at ROA) and then 2) if there were more trains than primetime on the NEC could handle a daylight out-and-back from WAS - ROA and back. If only "shoulder" time is available, then I do think Virginia (and West Virginia) should see where another train could be overnighted on the Cardinal route to serve CVS one more time each day.

Do I read the Cardinal Schedule correctly to see crew changes when I see the long holds at Huntington WV and Charlottesville VA?
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/149/302/Car ... 011413.pdf

If Charlottesville is already a crew base for the Cardinal (is it?), I'd be tempted to build a siding there and give CVS its own early AM train once ROA and LYH have theirs. Either that and get West Virginia (or the Greenbrier and Homestead) to pay up for a state supported train that overnighted in White Sulfur Springs or Huntington. [/quote][/quote]

CVS is not a crew base. It is an outlying sign up/off location (what you guys to seem to call an "away terminal") for 51/50 and 19/20. That being said, since services and facilities exist in LYH it may be easier to upgrade the existing facilities there. This way, you would only need to contract for inspection/servicing crews in one location.

There's a lot of railroad between WAS and ROA. If you're not planning a same day turn, it may be better to extend two NYP based regionals. I'd have to look at the lineups and tinker with turns but off hand I'd say push back your trip times WAS-ROA to fit 111's profile down and move up your ROA departure a few minutes to time with 198 back for corridor alignments.

That might make the equipment loss on the NEC easier to sell.

MattW wrote:know Virginia would eventually like to extend a "reverse-peak" Regional along their corridor, but if the right train was extended, what would it take to extend it to Atlanta as a daylight Crescent? From a strictly schedule standpoint, I personally see three options for daylight NYP-ATL southbound service during the week

Well, between the Peach State proposal and my own thread on replacing the Cresilvers with day trains, you're not alone.

I'd nip your proposal off at Charlotte because:
1) That's likely as far as the political will for funding operating support ends: with NC and VA being proven PRIIA-era train supporters
2) That's a proven place to turn a train (with new layover capacity coming on line soon)
3) That's as far as one trainset-day will take you (it takes 16 trainset-hours to "fund" a WAS-CLT round trip which can be thought of as 1 "day train" day)
4) North Carolina and Virginia both have a proven willingness to "create" equipment (NC chose to buy, refurb, and supply its own equipment, and Amtrak Virginia was originally "founded" by Virginia paying to refurb coaches to add to the NEC pool. So the state-level political will
The Crescent takes almost exactly 12 hours from NY Penn to Charlotte.

And #2--trainset days-- is the issue. As noted earlier, most of Amtrak Virginia was provisioned with trains by taking trains that would have been sitting idle at WAS and sending them South at the end of their day and having them start their day very early. You can't do that for any "reverse" trains or even for Norfolks #2 and #3 trains. From here, unless you can sneak another train out of WAS at night and bring it back by the next morning, you have to come up with "new" equipment.

Its funny that exactly the train 185/ that I was going to use to take advantage of the LYH siding also make a fine daily NYP-CLT train:
SB -NYP- - -WAS- - -CVS- - -LYH- - -ROA -- CLT
DP 08:10 - 11:30 - 14:00 - 15:10 ----------- 20:10 NER #185 Extended

But then, starting from CLT, it needs another counterpart that isn't 184 (and doesn't take advantage of otherwise-idle time) to pair with an NEC train. The earlier you can start it from CLT, the more "free" train it uses, but the less use it is as "reverse" of the Crescent.

ThirdRail7 wrote:This manual quoting is for the birds!

And where's my "Edit" button?

Quoting things the old fashioned way, because the quote this post button seems to be missing with the recent forum upgrage, lirr42 attempts to quote Arlington when he wrote:And where's my "Edit" button?

That button has seemed to disappear for many of us as well.

Re: Lynchburg VA NE Regional (ext. to Roanoke and Bristol)

Postby Arlington » Tue May 28, 2013 9:12 am



Its funny that exactly the train 185/ that I was going to use to take advantage of the LYH siding also make a fine daily NYP-CLT train:
SB -NYP- - -WAS- - -CVS- - -LYH- - -ROA -- CLT
DP 08:10 - 11:30 - 14:00 - 15:10 ----------- 20:10 NER #185 Extended

But then, starting from CLT, it needs another counterpart that isn't 184 (and doesn't take advantage of otherwise-idle time) to pair with an NEC train. The earlier you can start it from CLT, the more "free" train it uses, but the less use it is as "reverse" of the Crescent.

**ahem**

I believe I already mentioned 185 is perfect candidate for a CLT extension. I even balanced the fleet.

Re: Lynchburg, VA NE Regional

Postby ThirdRail7 » Sat Dec 08, 2012 6:07 pm

Arlington wrote:

So far, the real market driving LYH/CVS has been NYP/PHL so from a market-support standpoint I don't feel a need to have the train start any further north than NYP and would have it start at PHL if that meant a shorter route could be more predictable (such as from a crew-time standpint). Also, I just *know* from airline economics that PHL-CLT is a very expensive air travel market and will be for the foreseeable future (as a US Air monopoly) and therefore has latent demand.

On the southern end, I'm looking for something place "free" for a second LYH train to overnight before 2018, so this probably means *not* serving ROA, but, indeed going LYH-Danville-GSO-CLT as Station Aficianado first suggested. The theory being that a second LYH train makes sense, but paying for a second layover berth in LYH does not since a likely 2018 scenario is 1 train laying over in ROA and another laying over in LYH (or either way, a second layover anywhere costs money that takes time).

Meanwhile, NC will have CLT upgraded by 2014 and in anticipation of getting new service to *somewhere* via *somewhere*. So how about from 2014 to 2018 planning to run CLT-GSO-Danville-LYH-CVS-WAS-PHL. Yes, it misses the RIC and RDU population centers, but it ends up connecting places that don't have good air service and don't have good interstate highway service (eg. the whole US 29 corridor)

All right, Mr Arlington. I'll play along. Let's get our heads in the game and think this through.

I can appreciate what you're trying to accomplish but from an operational standpoint, I now think you're going about it the wrong way. To accomplish your goal, we need to scrap everything and make a new train.

We need to create Carolinianoanoke, a dedicated train from NYP-CLT via LYH/ROA!

This makes a lot more sense, and if you had another set of equipment and the track is available, it would take less time. The reason is you no longer have to worry about facilities for GRO, ROA or LYH. Additionally, you may now run through ROA since it no longer matters that GRO is outside of the 125 mile threshold. This is because can take care of everything at CLT, since it has a crew base and major facility. You also minimize the crew aspect, since there is an existing crew profile for this route (ROA aside.)

Everything would boil down to timing. It needs to time together for the crew changes and arrive CLT in a timely fashion so you don't expend resources servicing two trains hours apart. I don't know the impact of swinging the train through ROA before meeting up on 19's route in DAN. This goes back to the original plan: 185's slot. I hate to do this but we can roll the dice and make a mixed corridor/long distance train. Make the consist 9 cars, two AM2s, cafe, full business class, 3 (through) local coaches and 2 local NYP-WAS coaches that you cut in DC when you take the electric off. By my (unscientific) calculations, this new set should arrive in CLT around 9pm at the outside.

Coming back, swing it for an 8am departure, arriving Washington at 530pm. Take an electric and the 2 cars you cut off 185 in the morning, and you have your 610pm departure out of DC for New York. This mirrors what 80 used to do years ago.

Now, I gave you the operational theory, consist and crew possibilities. You tell me is there a viable route between LYH-ROA-CLT and if anyone in their right mind would utilize the service between ROA and CLT. This is important, since you lose the time you'd save taking 80 by swinging through ROA.

Honestly, I'd like to see another Pennsylvanian before I see this.

^ Yes. I've always liked it and am happy to return to it (and kinda keep things on topic) as a way of discussing where the next generation of service will come from once today's LYH train lays over each night at ROA.

THe other question is how to strike the 4-way balance between ROA (and its many students but no 2nd overnight track), CVS (and its rich, NYP-bound riders), CLT (and what NC will bargain for as a sponsor and layover host), and the Piedmont Triad (Greensboro Winston-Salem) and whether it can bargain for better service along the Crescent instead of via Raleigh....all that on the marketing side....versus the cost side of whether LYH is cheaper (in terms of shoulder train-hours used and idle siding used) and where the equipment would come from if the train runs through the Virginia hinterlands in "prime NEC time"

Another way to look at this service is how the Southern scheduled it when they were still running (3) trains south of Washington, The Piedmont, The Southern Crescent, and a Lynchburg round trip.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?grou ... &item=0055" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll notice that this was the first year that the Southern started to petition the ICC to drop it's trains. It was getting close to it's minimum commitment
to operate the services for (5) years after AMTRAK day.

Ken

peconicstation wrote:Another way to look at this service is how the Southern scheduled it when they were still running (3) trains south of Washington, The Piedmont, The Southern Crescent, and a Lynchburg round trip.

http://www.timetables.org/full.php?grou ... &item=0055" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll notice that this was the first year that the Southern started to petition the ICC to drop it's trains. It was getting close to it's minimum commitment
to operate the services for (5) years after AMTRAK day.

Ken

OT, but was the Lynchburg local really run as a mixed train as listed in the timetable linked by Ken? I don't recall hearing that before.

I'd love to see a daylight CLT regional come down the Piedmont. 79/80 simply takes too long and CSX doesn't always treat it very nicely. NS treats 19/20 with kid gloves. With that said, I whipped out my Virginia Division timetable to check out ROA options. Only real way in/out is the N&W main from LYH. There ARE two other ways out, south to Winston Salem and east back to the Piedmont at Hurt. Both are 261, but only good for 40mph. I'm guessing looping through ROA would require a push/pull set if you wanted to get out of there in a decent amount of time....the Piedmont connection at Montview (LYH) is a wye so you wouldn't have to change ends again. Probably better off extending 171/176 to ROA and calling it a day.

cobra30689 wrote:I'd love to see a daylight CLT regional come down the Piedmont. 79/80 simply takes too long and CSX doesn't always treat it very nicely. NS treats 19/20 with kid gloves. With that said, I whipped out my Virginia Division timetable to check out ROA options. Only real way in/out is the N&W main from LYH. There ARE two other ways out, south to Winston Salem and east back to the Piedmont at Hurt. Both are 261, but only good for 40mph. I'm guessing looping through ROA would require a push/pull set if you wanted to get out of there in a decent amount of time....the Piedmont connection at Montview (LYH) is a wye so you wouldn't have to change ends again. Probably better off extending 171/176 to ROA and calling it a day.

So, you're saying ROA-CLT via DAN isn't really feasible?

ThirdRail7 wrote:

cobra30689 wrote:I'd love to see a daylight CLT regional come down the Piedmont. 79/80 simply takes too long and CSX doesn't always treat it very nicely. NS treats 19/20 with kid gloves. With that said, I whipped out my Virginia Division timetable to check out ROA options. Only real way in/out is the N&W main from LYH. There ARE two other ways out, south to Winston Salem and east back to the Piedmont at Hurt. Both are 261, but only good for 40mph. I'm guessing looping through ROA would require a push/pull set if you wanted to get out of there in a decent amount of time....the Piedmont connection at Montview (LYH) is a wye so you wouldn't have to change ends again. Probably better off extending 171/176 to ROA and calling it a day.

So, you're saying ROA-CLT via DAN isn't really feasible?

VA DRPT currently has $95.8 million in the FY14 draft SYIP budget for track upgrades to extend the train from Lynchburg to Roanoke. How much would NS ask to run a passenger train beyond Roanoke over tracks that only have freight trains? Another $100 million? Have to accept that the freight railroads will demand track upgrades for any passenger train service extension over tracks currently used only for freight.

The idea of a NYP to CLT daily train over the Crescent route is a worthy one. But until Charlotte has a new train station, the Piedmont corridor upgrades between Greensboro and Charlotte are completed, VA funded upgrades from Alexandria to Lynchburg segment for a second daily train to Lynchburg are done, it is not going to happen. NC may be far less interested in additional passenger rail service beyond what is already funded as a red state after the last election and VA's long term plans are for 2 daily trains to Roanoke and then extending service to Bristol (really long term), not to NC.