About a month ago there was a post concerning an OTB look at the LAKESHORE LTD. Lets do the same for the CAPITAL LTD.
The obvious thing is of course getting thru NY-CHI cars running. Equipment wise a Viewliner sleeper and a Amfleet II coach should be shifted over from the LSL. Switching the cars in/out at Pittsburgh while not as easy as it once was is doable. Route wise the CAPITAL should run CHI-Toledo via the NS (ex-NKP) via Ft. Wayne and Ft. Wayne-Butler, IN via the ex-Wabash line. The eastbound schedule should be adjusted for this rerouting and also to put the CAPITAL into Pittsburgh an hour and a half later for a more convenient connection with the PENNSYLVANIAN. Westbound the PENNSYLVANIAN's schedule should be pushed back several hours to allow for a more convenient connection with the CAPITAL.
This would coordinate with one of the Keystone trains being extended to Pittsburgh to compliment the adjusted schedules. This was probably discussed earlier but under this scenario the current PENNSYLVANIAN would be treated as the NY section of the CAPITAL so the state of Pennsylvania would only have to pay for one NY-PITT schedule just as the Boston section of the LSL is not paid for by Massachusetts.
OUTSIDE THE BOX
Here I thought it was 'Off Track Betting'
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Depends on at least 3 (maybe more) things:
* Compatibility of schedules for the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol.
* Availability of equipment.
* Cost and availability of a locomotive and crew to do the switching, if necessary.
Tom
P.S. It's the Capitol Limited, not the Capital Limited, and always has been.
ACY Depends on at least 3 (maybe more) things: * Compatibility of schedules for the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol. * Availability of equipment. * Cost and availability of a locomotive and crew to do the switching, if necessary. Tom
Good. And one would think none of those three points would be insurmountable barriers.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I do not know just what work rules people in road service on Amtrak have, but back n the fifties I was talking with a Southern engineman after watching a mail car being set out in Charlotte, and he told me that they were allowed to do one switching move without asking for extra pay.
And, Amtrak crews make this sort of move daily in Spokane,and three times a week in San Antonio.
As I recall, the sleepers on the CapitOl Limited are ahead of the coaches, so if stepdown coaches are available, they could provide the transition between Superliner and Viewliner and whatever other cars that are run through..
Johnny
The CAPITOL LIMITED it is. Mea Culpa.
I am guessing OTB doesn't stand for off track betting.
I don't think the change is worth it. A few medium sized towns in Indiana gain service in the form of one train each way a day. Are those manned stations perhaps with ticketing and baggage service or just a concrete platform? What is the handicapped provision? Are you going to qualify additional crews on a new route or just utliize present crews through retraining?
If you are going to have through cars to NY, they are going to have to be single level to fit in the Hudson River tunnels. They won't be in communication with the rest of the train. Are you going to provide for an additional conductor?
As for Pittsburgh, those connections could be tightened up without disturbing the rest of the route.
A stepdown coach (if such is available) has an upper level vestibule at one end and a lower level vestibule at the other end. It may be though, that all of Amtrak's stepdown cars are now in use as sleeper/onboard service lounge cars (and the conductors also sit there).
I don't think the "stepdown coach" discussion is relevant. The Capitol Limited currently carries a Superliner Transition/dorm which can serve that function as a mid-train car west of Pittsburgh. East of Pittsburgh, the single level Chicago-NYC cars would match the single level cars currently in use.
Also, I don't see where the discussion of additional service to towns in Indiana is very relevant. There would be no reason to qualify anybody on any additional routes because this idea simply means adding through cars to routes that already exist. The advantage would be for people in Chicago and points west of Pittsburgh to have direct access to points on the former PRR mainline between Pittsburgh and NYC and vice versa.
If scheduling and switching do not present serious or expensive problems, then the only real issue is the availability of equipment. I can't address that.
Of course, there could be some other factors that I don't know about.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.