posted
Wonder if there are still plans to operate through cars to Chicago on the Capitol Limited. Presumably such would technically transform the Pennsylvanian to a long-distance route?
-------------------- 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 |
posted
David, I'm trying to keep up here, and what I don't know about the legalities of Amtrak service and the ins-and-outs of operations would fill a large book, I have two questions:
Where would the through cars to Chicago be "cut out" (with a switching move) of the consist? Amtrak hates to make these moves.
Why would cars just being "carried along" for later transfer to another destination make the Pennsylvanian LD?
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Again I must note that PRIIA 08 contains language that defined the scope of the trains that were to have Local (generally meaning State) funding participation. The "make it an LD" tactic was blocked by language within the enacted legislation.
Of possible interest, PRIIA 08 was enacted as Division B of RSIA 08 as the whole Passenger Rail bill was "tacked" onto the Rail Safety legislation that immediately post-Chatsworth (and now post-Red Oak and Goodwell) was more "front and center" - a lame duck President Bush really didn't care what he was signing.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
At one time Mike, there was talk of running through cars (presumably a viewliner sleeper among them) from the Pennsylvanian to Chicago via the Capitol Limited at Pittsburgh.
Admittedly, this was put out there as a 'service enhancement' idea and not some way to circumvent legislation (which Mr. Norman notes has been addressed proactively.....)
I doubt that the idea of through cars switched at Pittsburg will get far....... there are the issues of track work and then ongoing switching in Pittsburgh to address..... not to mention whether Pennsylvanian passengers will have access to the Capitol's Diner via the transition dorm car or not.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
Appearing in Today's New York Times as the lead article in the National section, as well as a front page "below the fold" photo is this article profiling Huntingdon and how the possible loss of the Pennsylvanian would have impacted the immediate region:
HUNTINGDON, Pa. — The unmistakable wail of a locomotive horn and screeching steel wheels signal the arrival of the evening Amtrak train in this central Pennsylvania town just over an hour west of Harrisburg, the state capital. The train is one of two that stop here daily, a vital link to Harrisburg, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and the entire Northeast Corridor.
“There is no bus service or airports nearby,” said Dee Dee Brown, the mayor of this town of 7,000, who often rides the train to Philadelphia. “It’s just the train, and, quite frankly, we would be a ghost town without it.”
But after years of financial losses on the route for Amtrak, Pennsylvania was faced with either picking up the tab or losing it altogether by Oct. 1. Under pressure from Congress to reduce its dependence on federal subsidies, Amtrak is looking at either closing 28 short-haul routes or getting 19 states to cover the costs. Most of the states have already agreed to pick up the costs.
Although the article - print and web - includes numerous photos, none appear to reflect passenger railroading as a modern contemporary means of passenger transportation. It is great that there is respect for the heritage of railroads, but that belongs to public events such as National Train Day and the numerous on line events that roads such as the Union Pacific sponsor.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just read this article a few minutes ago. I enjoyed the photos but this was more a historical preservation piece to be sure.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
I really don't see what makes the Times piece a merely "historical" article. The author talks about the current sad state of passenger rail in America. About the people who use and depend on it. And about what's being done to keep Amtrak's much-needed services functioning. It's hardly an irrelevant fluff piece.
As far as the photos are concerned:
Simply put, they depict what taking the train in Pennsylvania (and most of America) looks like: Hardscrabble towns that often have no airline or bus service. PRR-era stations. Kids in Amish hats and overalls. Average Americans who don't live in upscale suburbs or have bottomless bank accounts.
I'm one of those average Americans. I also don't own an automobile. And with the escalating price of airfares (especially to smaller cities), flying is often beyond my budget.
Which is one of the main reasons why, like many people, I take the train.
So apart from one photo of vintage station hardware? I see nothing nostalgic about the Times article at all.
No, the article isn't about high speed rail in the year 2095, First Class travel on the Acela, or Deluxe bedrooms on the AutoTrain. But it is about real life today -- and the important role Amtrak plays -- for millions of non-"land cruise" American rail travelers like me.
posted
Valid points recognized and taken Dilly.......
And this for someone who has just concluded that for a trip to the midwest in July, my financial situation calls for the cheaper option...... Southwest or US Air roundtrip rather than two nights each way in a roomette.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
As part of the negotiations, PennDOT through in the card that outted Amtrak that the Pennsylvanian made a positive contribution of passengers to the Capitol Limited. I've been told, by reliable sources, this helped to reduce the cost that Amtrak was originally looking for PennDOT to pay for operation of the Pennsylvanian.
It has also been said that David Gunn asked PennDOT to pony up $5M around 2005/2006 to save the Three Rivers (when it was to be discontinued). It was to operate (in addition to the Pennsylvanian), as a day train, between NYP and Pittsburgh. But this was a last ditch effort in the year of political battles in PA that didn't take hold.
The through car operation between the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited has been talked about since the Three Rivers was axed as a NYP to CHI train overnight train - that included a single Viewliner sleeper and three trainsets. Soon as that train came off the schedule, NS went to work to remove various trackage at the Pittsburgh station.
Again, I've been told that Amtrak could - if it wanted to - start up the operation of through cars between the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited at any time IF it really wanted to. The "trackage" that is being requested to be put back is more for convenience. The conductors could put the through cars on or take them off (as they do with the Superliner coach at Minneapolis).
Amtrak does have a case that they are sort of short - at present - on equipment to do the through car operation between the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited. But again, if Amtrak really wanted to operate the service, it could find the cars. For example, the Silver Meteor could return to making a same day turn at Sunnyside Yard if its schedule was adjusted for a later southbound departure from NYP. This would free up an entire Silver Meteor trainset for the Pennsylvanian/Capitol Limited through car operation - three Viewliner sleepers and Amfleet II cars. After all, when the Three Rivers was axed, it gave up its pool of Viewliners to create a fourth Silver Meteor train set.
The Silver Meteor departed southoubd out of NYP with good ridership numbers at 7 p.m. for many years. If a "slot" is needed, re-time the Lake Shore so it arrives prior to NYP's rush hour. LOT of padding in the Lake Shore's eastbound trip. Granted though, it would have to probably swap departure times with the Capitol Limited. And that's been proposed too - it's just that the CSX upgrades between Pittsburgh and Martinsburg has been an issue.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
If through service for the Pennsylvanian means the end of Superliner equipment on the Capitol Limited, as it probably does due to not wanting duplicate diners, etc.., I hope that this proposal does not move forward.
It would be a shame to lose the one train train in the East that offers an appropriate venue to view its scenic route.
First, welcome to our Forum, which you will find is essentially "member moderated". You will not find this forum to be a kiddie-playpen where young railfans post their fantasies as fact - those sites are "elsewhere".
Your profile-linked blogsite regarding Santa Fe passenger trains is interesting and informative, and I would urge other readers to review such.
Regarding your thoughts on the proposed through car 30-PGH-42, Capitol Limited/Pennsylvanian interchange, such is to be, if it is to be, single level cars on the "head" of #30 CHI-PGH, thence on 42 to NYP. Any notion that the 390XX T-Dorm cars "belong to the crew" have been "out the window" ever since revenue passengers have been accommodated in those cars' Roomettes. Passengers in Pennsylvanian cars would use Capitol Limited Dining and Lounge facilities.
There are sinply not enough available single level cars to have the Capitol Limited assigned such. Delivery of the 130 CAF cars will only add capacity to the equivalent of 37 Sleepers comprising of 25 new cars and 12 more from the release of existing space for revenue service when vacated by On Board service in favor of the 25 new Baggage-Dorm cars. The remaining 55 Baggage and 25 Diners are replacing existing cars some of which are 65 years old and are soon going to "drop dead".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wish they had superliner equipment on the Cardinal (and that it ran daily, of course). Why can't they put it on in DC?
Posts: 2642 | From: upstate New York | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Messrs. Nadeau and Sojourner, within fellow CPA's well prepared immediate posting, Mr. JP has set forth "dollars and cents" reasoning why Amtrak does not really want a 30-PGH-42 through car interchange.
As Mr. JP noted, someone likely with PENNDOT "put a sharp pencil" to the numbers and contended that the connecting passengers should reduce the cost that PENNDOT need pay for the continuation of the Pennsylvanian. Since from a passenger convenience perspective, through cars would only enhance Pennsylvanian ridership (most arising from diversions away from The Chicagoan, whoops EB Lake Shore) and hence, based upon Mr. JP's reporting, give PENNDOT reason to fund the train even less.
Of interest, payments from local sponsors of trains are recorded on Amtrak's books as Railway Operating Revenue, and not buried into the non-revenue "abyss" of funding. ROR is a visible number to any party interested in Amtrak's financial affairs; why see that reduced for any reason within Amtrak's control?
Now regarding Ms. Sojourner's immediate comment, even though addressing 50-51, Cardinal, through Wash, such does bear relevance to the topic at hand. Even though a less favorable allocation of funding between Amtrak and a local agency is not at issue, Amtrak nevertheless is quite obverse to adding or cutting cars en-route. Beyond that of the Pennsylvanian, one would wonder why Amtrak's opts to handle empty cars Atlanta-NO on The Crescent, or even the immediate suggestion (I would guess the reasoning behind such would be to provide a more scenic view) to add Superliners to 50-51 consist at Wash.
While railroads frequently did so (I can recall a '64 trip Atlanta-NY on the Crescent where cars were added or cut at Greenville, Charlotte, Greensboro, and Wash; even the Panama Ltd did same at Jackson, Memphis, and Carbondale), Amtrak chooses not, presently handling through cars at San Antonio, Spokane, and Albany. The recent restoration of through cars at Albany I'm certain was made owing to a political "lean on" as any other cogent reason escapes me.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Thank you very much for your comments. Greatly appreciated.
If transition cars were to be used on the Capitol Limited I believe this might be the first instance of passengers from essentially two types of consists/two different types of trains intermingling at least on a Class I railway.
Of course, the El Capitan and Super Chief often ran as one train in later years, but as on the Titanic the classes were kept separated.
posted
To chime in here - the issue now of dropping/adding cars to the Crescent at Atlanta is that there is no longer a 'house track' in place at Peachtree Station to hold the equipment over on.
However, if Amtrak really, really wanted to do a same day turn with a sleeper and a coach or two from the Crescent, the necessary house track (and likely 'just enough time' between #19 & #20) is still in place in Birmingham.
And also allow me to extend a welcome to Mr. Nadeau. I've been fortunate to know and work with a number of good people from Iowa.
-------------------- 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 |
posted
"And also allow me to extend a welcome to Mr. Nadeau."
Thank you very much. I am honored to be here. This is a forum of people who actually like and respect each other regardless of how much their opinions differ. I very much appreciate that.
quote:Originally posted by DonNadeau: "And also allow me to extend a welcome to Mr. Nadeau."
Thank you very much. I am honored to be here. This is a forum of people who actually like and respect each other regardless of how much their opinions differ. I very much appreciate that.
Speaking of Iowa - in the time since this thread was last active, I've finished my July travel arrangements to a 'Big Do in Dubuque'...... a reunion for alumni and past staff members to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the founding of the Colts Drum & Bugle Corps.
Cannot wait to get there. Iowa is a lovely place in July. Takes some adjustment in January though!
Perhaps on my next trip back to Dubuque I'll be able to travel on a revitalized 'Blackhawk'.
-------------------- 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 |
Iowa is a lovely place in July. Takes some adjustment in January though!
How true. I spent a lifetime in Cedar Rapids, IA between 10/68 - 1/69 in a job that didn't work out for me. During an icestorm (they have many), drove back to NY with my bride and young child in our 1968 Dodge Dart. We only go back to the Hawkeye State to visit her relatives now.
Posts: 1530 | From: Ocala, FL | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
