posted
The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reports that The Pennsylvanian may not get the State level funding required under PRIIA '08 and as such would be discontinued. If such be the case, there would no longer be rail service between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg - and no passenger train over Horseshoe Curve:
While hardly conclusive at this time, and it appears there are "outs" such as "public need", it is clear that there is intent to enforce these provisions within PRIIA. New York has now agreed to fund the Empire Service and Michigan, with their acquisition of the Kalamazoo-Detroit line, has clearly provided "in-kind" funding.
"Talk" at various forums has always been about restoration of a second frequency, but as the article points out, Pittsburgh's FY 12 passenger count (129,372 - source: Amtrak press release) declined over comparative FY 11 in the face of generally increasing ridership throughout the system.
However, it should be noted that according to Amtrak's Sep 12 Monthly Performance Report, Pennsylvanian FY 12 ridership is reported as 207,016 - an increase of 2.2% over FY 11; guess everyone boards at stations other than Pittsburgh, which to me is hard to accept (anyone care to contact the PG reporter and let him hear it?)
So even if one can still ride over Horseshoe Curve tomorrow, it is surprising to learn that a route deemed "safe" is actually in jeopardy.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know why Amtrak doesn't cut a deal with the state on this. The state funds the necessary track changes in Pittsburgh to allow for a direct connection from the Capitol and continues to pay the current subsidy for its operation. In return Amtrak declares the train long distance (and not subject to PRIIA) with through cars (and a better schedule) connecting to/from the Capitol in Pittsburgh. The name would change to the New York section of the Capitol, much like the Portland section of the Empire Builder.
Pennsylvania keeps their train, Amtrak gets increased revenue through the improved connection and continues to receive state subsidy for a portion of the costs.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps some sort of deal is being worked out 'behind the scenes' and this public sparring is merely a test to gauge what degree of public outcry emerges. Once that is established, the dealmakers drive on knowing who has the upper hand.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by palmland: The name would change to the New York section of the Capitol, much like the Portland section of the Empire Builder.
Pennsylvania keeps their train, Amtrak gets increased revenue through the improved connection and continues to receive state subsidy for a portion of the costs.
The catch is that the Capital Ltd is a Superliner train and the Superliner cars won't fit into New York. Therefore, these run as two essentially independent trains combined or else some passenger accessible transition cars need to be placed between the parts.
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, the plan I had heard was just through coaches off the Pennsylvanian would be thru to Chicago (and I assume a cafe)- not sure where the transition car would be. I suppose when new Viewliners are delivered sleepers can be added.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now that Dining and Lounge personnel have "accepted" that they will be assigned line space, they no longer can expect to have "their" private car. With Roomettes in T-Dorms being regularly sold as line space and with plans to convert the Lower Level of such to the existing Superliner configuration, that car can be placed in consist where it is most needed.
The NYP-CHI Coaches would, as Mr. Palmland notes, be placed ahead of the "T-Car" and, if with the delivery of the new "Viewliner" Sleepers (again I note, where has there been an official pronouncement from Amtrak they will be named Viewliners?), a Sleeper line can also be protected, that Sleeper would be placed at the head of the Coaches so those paying the stiff premium can "hear the train blow".
But I know one party that will be less than happy if there is to be an NYP-CHI Sleeper line; that would be one Mr. Edward Ellis. While who knows if his Pullman Rail Journeys will ever turn a revenue wheel again (a SB trip is scheduled for Mar 29; but "stay tuned" on that one), one of his "visions" was PRJ service over that route. If Amtrak were to offer Sleeping Car service, there is simply no way, considering his Non-Agreement service staff, under existing Amtrak labor agreements, he could offer same other than the end points, NYP and CHI. However, and if Amtrak even wanted to wage the war with the ASWC for Mr. Ellis' convenience, a case could be made that he could offer his service to intermediate points for passengers traveling through PGH on the strength that Amtrak did not offer service over same.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hopefully a deal is in the works similar to the one Amtrak, BNSF and the state of North Dakota worked out to keep service thru Grand Forks. I don't know how much track work is needed in Pittsburgh for the switching. As far as single level equipment running with Superliners as was done with the THREE RIVERS/CAPITOL in the late 90's before the THREE RIVERS became a separate NY-Chicago train transition Superliner sleepers were used, (Are there any transition Superliner coaches?). I doubt if Amtrak and Penn DOT are going to scrap the Philadelphia-Harrisburg line as too much money has been spent on it. Making the PENNSYLVANIAN the NY section of the CAPITOL as has been mentioned is the key. Tweaking the arrival/departure times in Pittsburgh and running the west end of the train thru Fort Wayne via the ex-Wabash between Fort Wayne and Butler (?), Indiana could make this train a viable compliment to the LAKESHORE LTD.
Posts: 37 | From: LAKEWOOD, OHIO | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well first off, the Viewliner sleepers that are supposedly "under construction" won't be available by the time the funding requirement comes due by the State of PA for the Pennsylvanian.
However, the Three Rivers once ran with Viewliners (even if it was just one Viewliner), requiring three train sets total. However, this was achieved (without hauling any Viewliners out of reserve) by having ONE train do a same day turn at Sunnyside Yard (e.g. the Silver Meteor at the time). In my opinion, if Amtrak "really wanted to" it could startup the through service operation to Chicago now, if the time of the Silver Meteor was pushed to say 6:45 p.m. or so (like it used to be).
Another option is to have the Capitol Limited truly operate like the Empire Builder, splitting and combining in Pittsburgh. Amtrak just freed up a Superliner train set on the Sunset Limited route and I think can find a few other Superliner cars to operate at least one sleeper, two coaches, and a Cross Country Cafe. Amtrak could even swap the Cross Country Cafe cars for the Superliner Sightseer Lounge that it reserves for the Auto Train. BUT, only run the Superliner to Harrisburg, where there would be cross platform change to a dedicated Keystone train for travel furhter East. Amtrak could even do a same day turn at Harrisburg with the section running between Pittsburgh and Harrisburg. The westbound would depart though, close to 5 p.m. The Superliners would largely be serviced in Chicago, while having just a cleaning and re-stocking in Harrisburg. These Superliners could arrive in Harrisburg around 12:30 p.m. and depart at 5:30 p.m. That's five hours to turn the train. Per schedule on the Empire Builder, the Portland section is turned in six hours. So this is not totally unreasonable!
As mentioned, IF Amtrak wanted to restore through service between the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited, it could do it now. The track configuration that is "needed" at Pittsburgh is largely for convenience.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mr. JP, as noted "elsewhere" where we both are members, PRIIA closed the gate with its language that would prevent any ploy such as "extending" the Pennsylvanian so that its end points met the 750 mile test.
The language appears explicit providing little in the way of wiggle room.
But when all is said and done, I'm certain The Pennsylvanian will continue to operate. Even though as reported earlier, it's ridership in Pittsburgh declined, overall the train showed a ridership increase during FY12. This means communities such as Johnstown and Altoona, not having "low cost" air service and, especially Johnstown, having less highway options are "carrying the ball". In all, it will be Statebucks funding the train going out the front door, but somehow Feddybux will find their way in the back door. Funny how the "masters of the game" all seem to operate inside the Beltway.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would agree on the PRIIA parameters you mention Mr. Norman.
However, I'd dump the Pennsylvanian completely and resurrect a Capitol Limited that is/was sort of the reverse of the Broadway Limited and its "Washington DC section." Even so, PA would be ponying up some additional money I am sure, but likely have more to horse-trade. The Capitol Limited would also likely be running a little more efficiently than what it is now if a split/combo was done in Pittsburgh.
I don't want to change the subject but has anything been mentioned of the upstate NY trains that run to Toronto or Niagara Falls? These trains have been picked up on the national level for years.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the PRIIA act language also preclude AMTRAK from de facto saving the HOOSIER STATE by running the CARDINAL daily?
Posts: 37 | From: LAKEWOOD, OHIO | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's interesting is that Amtrak issued various PIP reports calling for - or suggesting - a daily Cardinal, a potential split of the Capitol Limited or through train between Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited etc. Then you have the 750 mile rule coming into place. If the Pennsylvanian gets discontinued, this leaves a rather interesting "hole in the map" and getting such reinstated would likely put the Pennsylvanian in the same category as the Pioneer, Desert Wind etc.
Amtrak spends money (resources, energy etc.) on these various reports and they often conflict. Is it wise to discontinue the Vermonter after taxpayer money just went into to upgrade part of the line and more upgrades are planned? This is just all difficult to reconcile.
And the fact that even though certain trains are over the 750 mile mark but seem to be omitted is also rather strange (e.g. Palmetto, 66/67 former Night Owl, 94/95 former Colonial). Rather unusual that these train that run largely on the NEC get omitted but would technically be subject to the 750 mile rule, as I understand it....
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
