What bothers me is that Penn DOT willingly helps to support the Keystone Service train system which "saturates" the Harrisburg-Philly corridor with over 20 trains a day !!

Legislators from my part of the state (Western Pennsylvania) seem to care less about this gross imbalance in service.

As of March, 2005 there will be TWO daily trains between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg , yet over TWENTY between Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

I acknowledge thatthe Harrisburg-Philly corridor has a large population base and thus a bigger rider "base."-----but one requiring 20 trains a DAY ?? I think not.

Wouldn't it be a reasonable request for PennDOT to STIPULATE that any Amtrak funds used for Pennsylvania service be designated for the WHOLE state instead of just 100 miles of track ?

To be honest, I really do not think this kind of "imbalance" in state service (east "vs." west) or (north "vs." south) exists anywhere else in the country.

As mentioned, it is a mystery to me why Western Pennsylvania legislators do not protest this situation. All of my contact with them seems to fall on "deaf-ears."

I do not have the figures you request , unfortunately. Perhaps someone who browses thee board from the Eastern part of Pennsylvania might provide that information.

There is no doubt that the rider-ship and population base in the Harrisburg-Philly corridor IS much greater than that between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. I do not dispute that at all----so please understand.

I simply do not like the "Feast or Faminine" scenario that presently exists. I am not convinced that that corridor needs 20 daily trains serving it , WHILE service through to the Pittsburgh area is inadequate.

AGAIN: Would it not be "reasonable" for PennDOT to stipulate (to Amtrak) that funding for service in the state depend upon more BALANCE in service across the state ?

Let me use Florida just as an example:

What if there were 20 daily trains between Jacksonville and Orlando , but only 2 between Orlando and Miami ? Wouldn't this seem a little "odd."??

One reason (and there are bound to be plenty of others) is simply maintaining a high speed railway to the standards required for such speeds. A 100mph railway needs less TLC than a 125/135/150mph railway.

I will contradict myself a little here by saying that *allegedly* the standard of the track and catenary is not exactly "up to scratch" though. Not to European standards, anyhow. I seem to remember Mr Gunn holding up a cross section of rail where the profile of the head had been worn to such an extent that nearly a full square inch was missing from the head.

I assume there's also a lot more traffic on the NEC, thus requiring more maintenance.

However, without ridership figures it is impossible to judge whether that 20:2 figure is reasonable or not.

Also, the distribution of trains across the day must be considered along with the purposes of rail travel. Eastern PA has a strong history of rail commuting, including a couple of trains from Harrisburg all the way to Penn Station in Manhattan. This activity will greatly skew weekday ridership.

And, finally, it should be noted that SEPTA also runs many trains on the Main Line, along with other lines, so the actual ratio of trains is more like 30:1 or 40:1 (I don't have those figures).

This new schedule really sucks. Arriving in Pittsburgh at 10 pm is incredibly inconvenient if we wanted to have dinner plans in Pittsburgh.

I'd love to see some ridership numbers between HAR & PGH. Usually, our train is 75% full during that segment based on my observation, with business class sometimes sold out.