Cardinal discussion

Rerouting the Capitol Limited may not be a good choice. You'll end up nuking Amtrak service to Connellsville, Cumberland, Martinsburg, Harpers Ferry, and Rockville (the last three "covered" by MARC Brunswick Line service). There are no Thruway connections to the first two.

True those cities would lose their Amtrak service but a second NY-PITT schedule would be attained. EB the CL could run on the current PENNSYLVANIAN schedule with the 2nd train departing between noon and 1pm. WB the PENNSYLVANIAN would keep its current schedule and the CL would depart later in the day for an 11pm-midnite arrival in Pittsburgh. The route would be adjusted between Butler, IN and Chicago to serve Fort Wayne. On the eastern end the train would split in Harrisburg with the DC section going down the old port line. A similar set up as the LAKESHORE LTD.

Please do not suggest destroying the Lake Shore Limited or Capitol Limited service to serve other markets. Adding hours of travel and rerouting on to single track railroads is not a good idea. Improve the Cardinal (the topic of this thread) ... but don't mess with other routes.

If you replace Byrd Crap with a Broadway Limited, you save many hours of travel between Chicago and Philadelphia/New York. They should have never cut the Broadway Limited or Three Rivers just to save Byrd Crap. The only relevant cities served by the Cardinal not served by other trains are Cincinnati and Indianapolis and Cincinnati's times are during the graveyard shift and Indianapolis's are barely better.

Two thoughts:
The Broadway Limited is needed. Efficient, direct, time sensitive, NYC-PHL-CHI
The Cardinal is really pretty. Especially in the late Fall. New River Gorge is a delight.

BOTH! (For different reasons!)

In a "perfect" world, I would like to see in addition to all of the aforementioned routes (NYC-CHI). A resurrected Phoebe Snow running through the Del Water Gap, East Stroudsburg, the Poconos, Scranton, Binghamton, and all of those college towns that its namesake served on the EL. Would it be HSR between NYP & CHI? NO, but it would bring passenger train service back to some towns that have not seen it in decades (and would be utilized, at least during the holidays, due to all of the college towns along that route).

I was looking at this yesterday and checked the old 2018 time table... Four hours to cover CHI-IND?!?

...but then it's freight lines at 79 MPH max.

Ugh. Yeah, we need to do corridor service around Chicago. Drop that down to two hours, and CIN in three. I bet all that is single track as well...

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:49 am I was looking at this yesterday and checked the old 2018 time table... Four hours to cover CHI-IND?!?

...but then it's freight lines at 79 MPH max.

Ugh. Yeah, we need to do corridor service around Chicago. Drop that down to two hours, and CIN in three. I bet all that is single track as well...

Why does everyone want HSR when RSR (Reasonable Speed Rail) would help enormously. Since most of the Class 1s were originally double (or more) tracked , the RoWs exist to put the second track back in by Amtrak. This is where Federal and Amtrak infrastructure investment should be made. Class 1 owns one track and the Feds own the other with shared maintenance to keep Class 5 - 6 over the system. Corridors back to FRA Class 6 and at least Class 5 elsewhere. If they could run on reasonably good schedules they would have far more patronage.

If you could get CHI - CIN to Class 6 double tracked the timings you mentioned might be achievable.

R&DB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 12:16 pm

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:49 am I was looking at this yesterday and checked the old 2018 time table... Four hours to cover CHI-IND?!?

...but then it's freight lines at 79 MPH max.

Ugh. Yeah, we need to do corridor service around Chicago. Drop that down to two hours, and CIN in three. I bet all that is single track as well...

Why does everyone want HSR when RSR (Reasonable Speed Rail) would help enormously. Since most of the Class 1s were originally double (or more) tracked , the RoWs exist to put the second track back in by Amtrak. This is where Federal and Amtrak infrastructure investment should be made. Class 1 owns one track and the Feds own the other with shared maintenance to keep Class 5 - 6 over the system. Corridors back to FRA Class 6 and at least Class 5 elsewhere. If they could run on reasonably good schedules they would have far more patronage.

If you could get CHI - CIN to Class 6 double tracked the timings you mentioned might be achievable.

Really? It’s 198 rail miles between Chicago and Indianapolis, and another 121 rail miles between Indianapolis and Cincinnati, or a total of 319 rail miles. Amtrak’s Cardinal takes 4 hours and 54 minutes between Chicago and Indianapolis, and another 3 hours and 18 minutes between Indianapolis and Cincinnati, or a total of 8 hours and 12 minutes. That is with posted maximum speeds of 79 mph. If one could replace the entire routes with an average speed being 10 mph faster, or 30 mph faster, you would only save at best a few hours in time.
Some math follows calculating the average speed is necessary.
319 miles / 8.2 hours = 38.9 mph average speed while moving.
(Notes, I have already eliminated the 20 minute layover in Indianapolis, accounted for the time zone change, and calculated 12 minutes into 1/5 of an hour)
So here’s the math for a 10 mph increase in average speed.
319 miles / 48.9 mph = 6.52 hours, or 6 hours and 31 minutes.
That is a maximum time savings of 1 hour and 41 minutes.
And here’s the math for a 30 mph increase in average speed.
319 miles / 68.9 mph = 4.63 hours, or 4 hours and 38 minutes.
That is a maximum time savings of 3 hours and 57 minutes.

To actually get Chicago to Cincinnati time down to 3 hours, the train would have to average mph.
Math again; 319/ 3 = 106.33 mph.
Class 6 tracks will not achieve that, unless the train never slows down the entire 319 miles.

Why did I calculate the speed increases over the present achievable average speeds? Well, to account for all of the present slowdowns, station stops, slow track, railroad crossings other railroads, switching railroad dispatchers, and freight train interferences. A double track line will not eliminate any slowdowns, but will reduce some freight interferences. But the reduction in freight train interferences will probably be made up with more passenger train interferences, so it will probably be a wash.

The Brightline model with freight and passenger trains sharing the same double track line will work when both are owned by the same corporation. But when separate entities own the railroad services, it is not going to work as well. The model of the FRA compliant UTA, and other non fully compliant passenger train services is probably the most likely model in the future. Where the freight railroad sells half the row to the passenger train service with the passenger train building its’ own corridor - single or double track - immediately adjacent to the freight tracks. UTA is not the only example of separation of services on dedicated tracks in the same corridor. Many non fully compliant trains run on dedicated tracks adjacent to freight tracks within or immediately adjacent to each other. Flyovers are needed so passenger trains and freight trains can service station or customers on either side of the corridor. Where passenger trains have done this so far, the frequency of service is at least every hour, 24-36 passenger trains a day. How many trains do you think Amtrak will ever have on a Chicago to Cincinnati service? I do not think that it will ever be sufficient enough to warrant the expense of building and maintaining dedicated tracks.

STrRedWolf wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:49 am I was looking at this yesterday and checked the old 2018 time table... Four hours to cover CHI-IND?!?

Actually four hours IND-CHI, nearly six hours CHI-IND. Makes the trip about five hours when one remembers the time difference between Chicago and Indianapolis. Amtrak wishes that they could make the run in four real hours.

Nine hours Cincinnati to Chicago. Amtrak did that in eight hours in 1980. Missing Indianapolis and running on rails no longer in service.

Folks;
My post a page or so up was meant to further the re-opening of passenger rail service in the USA. &70 years ago Passenger rail ran over 100 mph on a regular basis all over this country. Then in the 1970s the Class 1s, no longer saddled with passenger traffic, allowed their infrastructure to decay and actively downgraded it by removing track. My conjecture is that public funds spent for passenger rail should be allocated to restoring what the Class 1 railroads ran before 1970. Whether that is operated by Amtrak, regional commuter roads or private is immaterial. The need exists.

R&DB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:06 pm Folks;
My post a page or so up was meant to further the re-opening of passenger rail service in the USA. &70 years ago Passenger rail ran over 100 mph on a regular basis all over this country. Then in the 1970s the Class 1s, no longer saddled with passenger traffic, allowed their infrastructure to decay and actively downgraded it by removing track. My conjecture is that public funds spent for passenger rail should be allocated to restoring what the Class 1 railroads ran before 1970. Whether that is operated by Amtrak, regional commuter roads or private is immaterial. The need exists.

Everywhere 100+ mph passenger trains in America? Really?
Which US railroads providing passenger train service allowed speeds over 100 mph prior to 1970?
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_spee ... ted_States
Federal regulators limit the speed of trains with respect to the signaling method used. Passenger trains are limited to 59 mph and freight trains to 49 mph on track without block signal systems. (See dark territory.) Trains without "an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train control system "may not exceed 79 mph." The order was issued in 1947 (effective 31 Dec 1951) by the Interstate Commerce Commission following a severe 1946 crash in Naperville, Illinois involving two Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad trains.

So, for around two decades before Amtrak existed, most American passenger trains were limited to 79 mph max speeds.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cab_signa ... ted_States
So, how many American railroads adopted cab signaling?
Cab signalling in the United States was driven by a 1922 ruling by the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC) that required 49 railways to install some form of automatic train control in one full passenger division by 1925. While several large railways, including the Santa Fe and New York Central, fulfilled the requirement by installing intermittent inductive train stop devices, the PRR saw an opportunity to improve operational efficiency and installed the first continuous cab signal systems, eventually settling on pulse code cab signaling technology supplied by Union Switch and Signal.
In response to the PRR lead, the ICC mandated that some of the nation's other large railways must equip at least one division with continuous cab signal technology as a test to compare technologies and operating practices. The affected railroads were less than enthusiastic, and many chose to equip one of their more isolated or less trafficked routes to minimize the number of locomotives to be equipped with the apparatus.

Repeating the more important points
49 railroads targeted, one district at a minimum, was what was required by the ICC.
Per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Railroad_classes
In 1925, the ICC reported 174 Class I railroads, 282 Class II railroads, and 348 Class III railroads.

At most, 49 railroads out of a total of 804 total railroads, around 6%. That means 94% of the railroads in the USA did not have to test cab signaling. Of the maximum of 6% that did, only just one division was required. Most Class 1 railroads even back then had more than one division. So were down to less than 3% of all the track miles in the USA had cab signals and even less had continuous cab signals after 1950.

In most of America, after 1950, logic suggests that at least over 97% of the tracks did not allow speeds over 79 mph. I'm sorry, I do not agree that trains were flying down the tracks in most of America at 100+ mph speeds during the 1950s and 1960s.

Just like I would not state that Acela trains speed down "most" of the famed NEC at 165 mph speeds. Yes, they do, but for just 33.9 miles of the total 453 miles of the NEC. I do not and will never agree that 7.5% of the NEC is most of it.

There's evidence that some roads had stretches where engineers could tickle the century mark on the speedometer on an E-unit... but it was the exception and usually broke the rules. Then again, enforcement of rules was viewed a lot different back in the 1950's. Definitely fewer lawyers...

Once speed recorders and portable radar guns became available to actually monitor train speeds without being in the cab at the time it was happening, a lot of that stopped because it could be actioned.

Lets keep history in the back of our minds and look at the present situation.

I think CHI-IND-CHI is itching for corridor service. That means:

• Service-separated tracks: 1 freight (with passing), 2 passenger.
• Higher speed track (since it's dedicated track) -- in-cab signals, straightened curves, etc.
• Level boarding at stations if possible

I looked at the timings and think there's room for improvement. With that improvement you can run more trains: reinstating the Hoosier State as a multi-run corridor and stretching it to CIN, as well as running the Cardinal daily with better timing.

But then I think single tracking was only good for freight back then and new lines must be double tracked at least.

R&DB wrote: ↑Thu Mar 04, 2021 10:06 pmMy post a page or so up was meant to further the re-opening of passenger rail service in the USA.

Without arguing the factual errors highlighted by others, that is the topic for other threads. The topic for this thread is the Cardinal