Restarting the Broadway Limited

Suburban Station wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:

gokeefe wrote:Terrible for NYP-PHL in the sense of passengers from those points and stations in between wishing to travel to Chicago.

True - which is why I suggest a through car (or three) off the Pennsylvanian. We as Amtrak supporters learned long ago never to put our eggs in a single basket!

Not sure how to handle the transition between single- and bilevel equipment, or how to make it ADA-accessible if there's a transition sleeper involved, but that's another matter. Maybe someone at Amtrak can buy a gallery car or two, do some surgery for a high end-low end door setup, and put in a wheelchair lift. Or, the Cap can go all single-level at the Cardinal's expense.

do they still hold the Pennsylvanian? I remember someone complaining they didn't hold the train for a late arriving capitol but most of the train originates in Pennsylvania and since it gets to NYP at rush hour it can't be late. I would say forget the through cars, the transfer isn't terrible. if you aren't going to add a train then just push the westbound cap up an hour and push the EB cap an hour later. it isn't great but without adding back the broadway or speeding up the train (or both) you aren't going to make much of a difference anyway

The one time I made the Capitol-Pennsylvanian connection (summer 2014), 42 had to be held about 10-15 minutes for 30, so I never even got to set foot inside the station. That being said:

JoeBas wrote:It seems like most of your beef is with the Pittsburgh station; at least as much as the train itself. It should be an easy and inexpensive matter to improve the situation at the station.

I hear descriptions of the Pittsburgh Union Station experience as sub-par quite a lot, and it's 100% correct that this is something that Amtrak, PennDOT, and the City of Pittsburgh should fix as soon as possible. For the benefit of present passengers as well as the passengers of any future additional trains, or even just the near neighbors in that part of the Golden Triangle. The last time I was in the Convention Center area (just around the corner from Union Station), I remember looking up where the nearest place was to get coffee and breakfast on a Saturday, and being appalled to find that it was several blocks in the wrong direction. Maybe that's gotten better, but curating better in-station retail ought to be an easy fix for a station that clearly needs it.

CComMack wrote: I hear descriptions of the Pittsburgh Union Station experience as sub-par quite a lot, and it's 100% correct that this is something that Amtrak, PennDOT, and the City of Pittsburgh should fix as soon as possible. For the benefit of present passengers as well as the passengers of any future additional trains, or even just the near neighbors in that part of the Golden Triangle. The last time I was in the Convention Center area (just around the corner from Union Station), I remember looking up where the nearest place was to get coffee and breakfast on a Saturday, and being appalled to find that it was several blocks in the wrong direction. Maybe that's gotten better, but curating better in-station retail ought to be an easy fix for a station that clearly needs it.

there's now a restaurant in the Monaco that opens at 6. the worst thing about Pittsburgh station is the fact that the beautiful old station sits intact upstairs (at track level!)

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Tried to fix that overnight connection in NOL as well. I still want to help Houston out as much as possible even after your criticisms.

Well, to be frank, you've got about as much power and influence to "help Houston" as you do to restart the BL. That's to say, well... not much, to be charitable. (That's not meant as a "personal jab", NONE of us on the interwebz has much power to actually DO anything).

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Just because life's unfair doesn't mean I have to accept it. And just because I complain doesn't mean I'm entitled or spoiled.

No, but taking this as personally as you do doesn't lead much to your objectivity. And you've got to admit, that given Amtrak's equipment (and funding) shortages, and looking at the ENTIRE PANTHEON of service that could be renewed, restored, enhanced or created out there if some were to magically be freed up/created, service to areas that have currently NONE, or at best bare minimum, should take precedence over areas that have service with a minor inconvenience transfer. No?

Philly Amtrak Fan wrote:Now getting back to topic... You don't think the transfer is a big deal. I do. And I'm not the only one. You've made your point several times. And you think I won't let it go?

I'll make you a deal...

Suburban Station wrote:there's now a restaurant in the Monaco that opens at 6. the worst thing about Pittsburgh station is the fact that the beautiful old station sits intact upstairs (at track level!)

See, that's just silly. And throwing some chicken scratch "Capital Improvement" money at making the station better, along with additional Pennsylvanian frequcy(ies?) to increase foot traffic, makes attracting retail easier as well.

Woody wrote: ... the Cardinal ... corridor ... Charlottesville/21,400 - Staunton/6,735 - Clifton Forge/2,247 - White Sulphur Springs/5,087 - Prince (Beckley)/2,925 - Charleston/9,770 - Huntington/5,885 [looks good despite 3-days-a-week running] ... ridership would double ... with a daily. That's why a hunch that ... Virginia will step up [and agree] to cover the (2010 estimated $2 million) increase in direct operating loss. ... there'll probably be no loss, and VA knows it. ...

[Later] could easily see a state-sponsored corridor train as far as Ashland, KY ...

Of course, a West Virginia train doesn't have to begin in D.C.

Start it Norfolk - Petersburg - Richmond, then head to Charlottesville and points west. Virginia wants to build Richmond into a hub, and a Norfolk Cardinal would be a strong spoke.

Woody wrote: Start it Norfolk - Petersburg - Richmond, then head to Charlottesville and points west. Virginia wants to build Richmond into a hub, and a Norfolk Cardinal would be a strong spoke.

Or, while we are throwing things out there......if NS would go for it, use the old N&W Hilltopper route west from Norfolk......Norfolk--->Petersburg----->Roanoke----->Bluefield, up the Pokey and out to the C&O around Huntington I believe??

Cobra Commander and Woody: I think you'll have a hard time outright missing Richmond on a Trans-Dominion train. Whether you take CSX Newport News-Richmond Main Street-Lynchburg and points west, or NS Norfolk-Petersburg - CSX Petersburg-Richmond - NS Richmond-Lynchburg and west, you'll have a backing move out of Richmond Main Street Station.*

Though now, we're just speculating based on no ridership estimates and no stated need, just a desire by the Commonwealth of VA and a proposal to install a new Broadway.

* You could go CSX NPN-Richmond, hit both Richmond stations, and transfer to the Buckingham Branch Doswell-Charlottesville without a backing move at all, but there aren't any towns (even the aptly-named Bumpass ) of any size before Gordonsville, VA.

This report mainly discusses ways to improve Amtrak service in and out of Chicago but discusses the Capitol Limited in detail:

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/873/180/Ch ... Report.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The CL serves CHI and WAS and has many transfer opportunities on both ends. Yet, the Pennsylvanian is the most common train CL passengers transfer to/from. During FY 2014, 22,386 passengers (more than 40% of the of 54,762 total passengers out of PGH) made the connection. That tells you that the transfer times/condition of the PGH station certainly is an issue. I would say the 5:05am arrival in PGH is bad not only for the passengers transferring but those getting off at PGH. How many times in the last year have you woken up at 5:05am? That's what you are asking passengers getting off in Pittsburgh to do, whether continuing on the Pennsylvanian or not. It would probably be better for the CL to leave CHI later which would also reduce the number of missed connections in Chicago from other trains as well.

I think 22,386 is a good base for a new train and that's not including passengers from Philly/New Jersey who might be transferring to either the LSL in NYP or the CL in WAS. In fact, according to Amtrak themselves (Capitol Limited PRIIA 2010: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/152/943/PR ... ed-PIP.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)...

"Recognizing the importance of connecting ridership at Pittsburgh, the Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) for the Capitol Limited focuses on leveraging that strength. In particular, the PIP proposes establishing direct service between Chicago, Toledo, Cleveland, and Philadelphia/New York, along with other eastern Pennsylvania and New Jersey points. This would eliminate the need for passengers to change trains during the night in Pittsburgh. This can be done by establishing through service with a set of cars to be switched between the Capitol Limited and the Pennsylvanian at Pittsburgh, giving passengers a single seat / bed ride
with much greater comfort and convenience. Market research has shown that as much as 40 percent of potential ridership and revenue between any two points can be lost if passengers must physically get off one train and onto another no matter how “convenient” that swap might appear. The PIP will provide better service to those passengers who now connect at Pittsburgh by offering through coaches and adding new sleeping car service. This change will directly affect customer satisfaction, which should help to drive CSI scores higher. In addition, it is expected to attract more than 20,000 new passengers who do not use Amtrak today because of the inconvenience and discomfort of changing trains and accommodations in Pittsburgh in the dark. As a result, through service will increase revenue and improve cost recovery. "

So you're talking at least 42,000 passengers a year who would benefit from a single CHI-PGH-PHL-NYP train (whether through cars or a separate train) without having to deal with the Pittsburgh transfer. I had projected a ridership around 180,000 for the full train and that's assuming the 2004 route through Akron as opposed to Cleveland. If you go through Cleveland and Toledo, I think 200,000 is a reasonable goal.

Admittedly the downside of the through car option would be passengers boarding in Pittsburgh will have to wait for the Capitol Limited to arrive from Chicago. If PennDOT and Amtrak can agree on a second PGH-NYP frequency, that would be less of an issue. If there are two daily trains serving PGH-NYP, there is plenty of demand IMO to send one through to Chicago in some way.

In addition to helping with the Pittsburgh problem, a new Broadway would serve as a 2nd PGH-NYP train, a 2nd PGH-CHI train, and a 2nd daily NYP-CHI train.

Once again a reminder this thread is about the Broadway Limited. Please direct your thoughts about that other train to the other posts about it.

22,386 seems like a lot of passengers transferring to or off the Pennslyvanian. But how many cars would that fill?
Some math:
22,386 / 365 = 61.33 passengers a day.
Since each Amfleet coach car can hold up to 84 seats, it's one car.

Longview Texas in FY 2015 had 35,469 boarding and alightings. It's where the bus from or to Houston meets the Texas Eagle. Yes, I stated BUS. And yes, you must make a transfer, there's no option at all for a thru Superliner coach. Imagine what that ridership would be if a Superliner coach was subsituted for the bus......
But alas, one coach doesn't make a profitable train.

electricron wrote:22,386 seems like a lot of passengers transferring to or off the Pennslyvanian. But how many cars would that fill?
Some math:
22,386 / 365 = 61.33 passengers a day.
Since each Amfleet coach car can hold up to 84 seats, it's one car.

Longview Texas in FY 2015 had 35,469 boarding and alightings. It's where the bus from or to Houston meets the Texas Eagle. Yes, I stated BUS. And yes, you must make a transfer, there's no option at all for a thru Superliner coach. Imagine what that ridership would be if a Superliner coach was subsituted for the bus......
But alas, one coach doesn't make a profitable train.

Do 180,000 make a profitable train?

electricron wrote:22,386 seems like a lot of passengers transferring to or off the Pennslyvanian. But how many cars would that fill?
Some math:
22,386 / 365 = 61.33 passengers a day.
Since each Amfleet coach car can hold up to 84 seats, it's one car.

Longview Texas in FY 2015 had 35,469 boarding and alightings. It's where the bus from or to Houston meets the Texas Eagle. Yes, I stated BUS. And yes, you must make a transfer, there's no option at all for a thru Superliner coach. Imagine what that ridership would be if a Superliner coach was substituted for the bus......
But alas, one coach doesn't make a profitable train.

Longview also has the BUS to Shreveport, where the Red River is infested with riverboat casinos, drawing gamblers from the Dallas-Ft Worth Metroplex. (So we're not getting 61.33 passengers to/from just Houston here.)

Rail activists have been planning for a corridor train Ft Worth-Shreveport, with intermediate stops. I like it, and think it would help the Eagle on the mostly overlapping route, and even the connecting Heartland Flyer. I've mentioned it hereabouts several times.

The trip currently requires the bus/train transfer that nobody likes. A thru train could probably fill 2 coaches with Shreveport riders, and perhaps another from intermediate stops.

The Shreveport corridor should be a good place to use Horizons when they eventually become available. So it would not compete with a Broadway Ltd. for needed equipment.

electricron wrote:22,386 seems like a lot of passengers transferring to or off the Pennslyvanian. But how many cars would that fill?
Some math:
22,386 / 365 = 61.33 passengers a day.
Since each Amfleet coach car can hold up to 84 seats, it's one car.

Longview Texas in FY 2015 had 35,469 boarding and alightings. It's where the bus from or to Houston meets the Texas Eagle. Yes, I stated BUS. And yes, you must make a transfer, there's no option at all for a thru Superliner coach. Imagine what that ridership would be if a Superliner coach was subsituted for the bus......
But alas, one coach doesn't make a profitable train.

I could be wrong but long distance coaches have substantially less than 84 seats. that said, adding back 40 percent lost due to the transfer is 85. I would also argue that this figure is greater because of the inconvenient time (you have to get up at 430 am to be ready to de board at 5). some of those riders probably go to DC even though they'd prefer not to...others don't make the trip. I can't say how much is either. 5 am is certainly a killer for Chicago Pittsburgh much less Ohio Pittsburgh. one thing going for the reinstatement of the route is there would be zero dedicated stations and it would almost certainly outperform the Capitol Limited. the Pennsylvanian is as big a train as the cl going half the distance

That is a major point in favor of this train. Hardly anyone makes this transfer now. It's not as if Amtrak would be building redundant service for an option that is already popular.

The population density NYP-HBG is the real driving factor that makes this proposal viable where others are not.

All of this is a moot point untill the NS irons out the trackage from Chicago thru Indiana,to get rid of the
congestion problems that exist on the Lake Shore,Capitol Ltd,and the Mi service trains.
CP(+EHH) gave up the NS takeover,but NS needs time to regroup.

Th Indiana Gateway project is well underway and by the end of this construction season it will be done. 12.5 miles of triple track and at least that many high speed crossovers. plus greatly lengthened yard lead lines to help clear the main line quicker.

On Sunday, April 17, NS will have an 18-hour outage between CP 490 and CP 497 on MT2 to install four switches. NS will single track on MT1. Then, on Sunday, April 24, NS will have a 20-hour outage on MT1 to install six switches, again between CP 490 and CP 497.These will be the switches/crossovers for CP 492 and CP 494. No word on final cutover date(s).

Construction is imminent on the new Porter siding on Amtrak line that will hold WB MI Amtrak while the EB MI Amtrak train completes the slalom and exits the NS Chicago line. And the completed Englewood flyover has greatly reduced delays. Also NS has upgraded the Kankakee Belt line, so they can take BNSF unit trains at Streator and bypass Chicago to Indiana connections with CFE, CSX and their own Chicago line to elkhart.

Now that the dust is settling for NS, I think they will be open to new pax trains on the line. But who will get them? MDOT will be applying for added CHI-DET and a 2nd frequency for Pere Marquette. Of course some form of daylight service for Cleveland/Toledo that also connect CHI-Pitt-Philly-NY would be a great addition.