My first LD train on Amtrak was the Broadway Limited back in 1994-1995 between Chicago and Harrisburg. Sadly the Broadway didn't last too much longer but the Three Rivers took its place and I took it between PA and Chicago a few times, transferring in Chicago to the Southwest Chief to Los Angeles twice. But the Three Rivers was also canceled. Since then, most of Pennsylvania including Harrisburg and Lancaster does not have a direct train to Chicago and the transfer in Pittsburgh from the Pennsylvanian to/from the Capitol Limited requires a four hour wait going west and a 5:05am wake up call/2.5 hour wait going east. Philadelphia has a few more transfer options (Washington or New York) and the Cardinal but that takes almost 27 hours to get to Chicago which takes a lot longer than going to New York or DC and transferring.
What I feel Philadelphia (as well as Harrisburg, Lancaster, Altoona, and the rest of PA) needs is a direct train to Chicago again. Philly is the 3rd busiest Amtrak station while Chicago is the 4th. Why shouldn't they be linked by a train that takes less than 24 hours?
In addition, the train would also serve as...
If extended to New York, serve as an alternative to the Lake Shore Limited which I hear frequently sells out. Also, with two trains from NYP-CHI, the two trains could be spaced out to increase schedule choice between the two endpoints. It also would serve Newark and Trenton, giving New Jersey passengers a train to Chicago without having to come to New York first.
Serve as a second Pennsylvanian frequency which was lost when the Three Rivers was canceled. When the BL/TR was running, it left Pittsburgh for Chicago earlier than the Capitol Limited did and arrived in Pittsburgh from Chicago later.
The new BL/TR does not IMO have to serve the old BL/TR route(s). I have no problem with running the train between PGH and CHI on the current Capitol Limited route passing Cleveland and Toledo (it would also give access to those cities from PA).
All Aboard Ohio has suggested running through Michigan instead of Indiana (http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/, http://allaboardohio.org/detroit-pittsburgh-corridor-campaign/). Not only would this train provide direct access from Pennsylvania to Chicago but it would also provide direct access from Michigan to Philly/New York. I believe the last time Michigan passengers could get to the East Coast using only trains was by the old Lake Cities train that went to Toledo where they could transfer to the LSL. Now it's a bus to Toledo). There are two possible schedules proposed: one extending the current Pennsylvanian west to Chicago arriving in Chicago early morning and leaving late at night (similar schedules to the LSL and CL) and one traveling overnight through PA and serving Cleveland, Toledo, and Michigan outside of the graveyard shift. This would also allow overnight trips between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.
I feel this train would be beneficial. And if Amtrak doesn't have the money/equipment to start the train, it should terminate the Cardinal. The new Broadway/Three Rivers would be a shorter, faster train between the two endpoints and serve more populous cities. Chicago-Indianapolis would still be served by the Hoosier State (and it would be easy to just run it daily to make up for the loss of the Cardinal) while Charlottesville-New York is served by Northeast Regional service as well as the Crescent. The Lynchburg service seems to be fairly successful and I would guess if the Cardinal were canceled a second Lynchburg could be started in its place and it would be able to be run daily and not have to worry about delays from the Midwest. The only major market lost if the Cardinal goes away would be Cincinnati but I would propose the Hoosier State to be extended to Cincy to make up for it. And it's not like the service in Cincinnati was that good anyway. The train stops in Cincinnati during the graveyard shift both ways. A new Broadway could be run daily with 3 sets as opposed to the Cardinal which can only run 3 days/week (and uses 2 sets). Even if the Cardinal is made daily, it would still be a less effective route than the BL/TR, especially if it still serves Cincinnati during the graveyard shift both ways.
To me it was a terrible mistake to cancel the Broadway/Three Rivers instead of the Cardinal as the BL/TR was way more valuable due to it being shorter, faster, and serving larger markets. Any smart businessman would have kept the BL/TR over the Cardinal but of course Sen. Robert Byrd demanded the Cardinal run so something else had to be canceled instead (I think the Broadway/Three Rivers is more valuable than the Capitol Limited which serves no major markets between Pittsburgh and Washington but of course that train also serves West Virginia so it couldn't be touched either). I refer to the Cardinal fittingly as "Byrd Crap" as it took the place of the BL/TR. Around the time the Cardinal was actually canceled before Byrd demanded it come back several other trains that served larger markets (Lone Star, National Limited, Floridian) were also canceled.
Hey, if Amtrak can serve both the BL/TR and Cardinal by all means they should. But to say White Sulphur Springs gets a train to Chicago while Harrisburg and Lancaster don't is stupid and bad for business. There are to my knowledge only four Amtrak stops with direct access to Chicago and one is Philadelphia which takes almost 27 hours when it really should take much less than that (the 1994 BL (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0018) took about 18 hours). Meanwhile, West Virginia between the Capitol and Cardinal have ten stops with direct access to Chicago. It doesn't make sense (or cents) to me that a state with one fifth the population of another should have better service to Chicago (the gateway to the west, at least when it comes to Amtrak). If you want to run a second Chicago to New York train, it should be competitive in time with the Lake Shore Limited. And if the Cardinal exists to serve Cincinnati and Indianapolis, reschedule the train so it serves those markets at better times and forget about the western connections (I think Cincinnati would trade the western connection for trains at better hours).
I feel my proposed new train (serving Michigan as well as Pennsylvania) would be way more financially valuable than the Cardinal. Since the Detroit and Philadelphia markets would be the most populous unique markets, you could call the new train the "Motown Philly" . I think a Philly name would be better marketing than "Three Rivers" or even "Broadway Limited". I like the name "Liberty Limited". Of course the original Liberty served Washington and not Philly but the name accurately represents Philly (and the Liberty name works for New York as well). The Michigan route would require Amtrak to find a suitable track between the Wolverine line and Toledo. If they can run it via the current CL line, that would work as well. But I feel us in Philly as well as the rest of the cities on the Pennsylvanian line deserve to once again travel to Chicago.
Philly Amtrak Fan There are to my knowledge only four Amtrak stops with direct access to Chicago and one is Philadelphia which takes almost 27 hours when it really should take much less than that (the 1994 BL (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19941030n&item=0018) took about 18 hours).
Back in the 1960s PRR Broadway days, it ran NYP-CHI as quickly as 15 1/2 hours.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
So you think everyone who lives Cincinnati and Indy should have to backtrack to Chicago if they want to go east just so people in Philly can have a one seat ride to Chicago?
Ridiculous.
An "expensive model collector"
Sure would like to see a revival of the Broadway LTD running on the former PRR Chicago - New York mainline.
n012944:
It's not a question of anybody wanting to inconvenience the folks in Indianapolis or Cincinnati. If that were the case, I'd be a lot more concerned about those in Columbus who have no passenger service at all. It has a whole lot more to do with the availability of appropriate routes, the willingness of certain politicians to support expanded service, the availability of equipment, public support, the willingness (or not) of the host railroads to cooperate, and a bunch of other factors, too many to enumerate. This is a classic collision of what's real with "what if". I'm not saying these problems can't or shouldn't be overcome in the future. I'm just recognizing that it can be a long way from the hatching of an idea to the maturity (i.e., practical application) of that idea.
I have suggested elsewhere that the Broadway route should be resurrected for through service. The PRR east of Pittsburgh is the obvious routing, although there may be some sentiment in favor of Allentown - Bethlehem instead of Philly. West of Fort Wayne is no longer a through route, and I, for one, don't know whether that can be restored. If not, then maybe the NKP could be used from Chicago to Fort Wayne, althought NS would probably raise the issue of track capacity. The biggest problem is between Fort Wayne and Pittsburgh. There seem to be two options there. The old PRR mainline from Crestline to Alliance is probably out of contention because of the expense of rebuilding the track, if it's possible at all. That probably means B&O from Pittsburgh to Greenwich, Ohio, restoring service to Akron and Youngstown. From Greenwich west, the train might continue west on the B&O to Fostoria, then the old NKP to Fort Wayne. Alternately, it could go down the old Big Four to Crestline, then west to Fort Wayne on the former PRR mainline, restoring service to Lima. A return of passenger trains through Greenwich could be the opening needed to restore service between Cincinnati, Columbus, and the East. Maybe even Indianapolis, although that might be a "bridge too far". It's very possible that I'm missing some important factors, but this seems like it could be an ultimately workable plan.
It takes political will and money, among other things. How much influence do you have in Washington? And how much money are you planning to contribute?
Tom
Unfortunately, the classic PRR Main thru Fort Wayne, a real speedway, is broken and unavailable for thru passenger service. Of course the Broadway should be revived. The Northeast and Philadelphia in particular should get decent service to the West and one Lake Shore Limiteed is certainly not enough. But the revived Broadway should also provide a second service between Cleveland, Toledo, Elkhart, South Bend, and Chicago, at decent times. Overnight Phily and NY - Cleveland, and a daytime service Cleveland - Chicago. 9pm departure NY, Midnight Harrisburg, 7AM Cleveland, 2pm Chicago. Eastbound, 3 PM Chicago, 10 PM Cleveland, 6AM Harrisburg, 9AM NY.
With the Canada Southern unavailable for a direct rerout of the Lakeshore west of Buffalo, Michigan is really best served by a through Toledo - Chicago train connecting with the revived Broadway at Toledo. With the current trackage and station arrangement in Detroit, a reversal in direction would be required, but this is still the best approach.
n012944 So you think everyone who lives Cincinnati and Indy should have to backtrack to Chicago if they want to go east just so people in Philly can have a one seat ride to Chicago? Ridiculous.
I'd be willing to compromise rerouting the Cardinal east of Cincinnati via Columbus, Pittsburgh, Harrisburg, Philadelphia, New York using the old Cincinnati Limited route (http://www.american-...m/cinn-ltd.html). The eastbound schedule back then between NYP and CIN was 15:05 and 755.1 miles as opposed to 18:31 and 828 miles on the current Cardinal. I don't know if it would be as fast today. I think saving an hour or two each way on the Cardinal and bringing back Columbus would be beneficial over the current route and there would be no areas where the train couldn't be run daily.
I think the most plausable thing to do is to add a viewliner sleeper, and a single story coach and a transition coach to the back of the current Capitol Limited,uncouple these cars in Pittsburgh, and attach them to the Pennsylvanian going east. The same operation could be performed going west. The transition coach could stay one the Capitol for the Pittsburgh to Washington segments. This has been proposed to AMTRAK, but, of course, nothing has been done.
Perhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one. While I would personally like to have an ever-increasing number of intercity trains, one way or another some source of funding (in addition to tickets sold) is needed to cover all of the expenses of operation. Amtrak struggles to get sufficient funding for what service it already operates, and the Pennsylvanian itself wouldn't exist without a large amount of state support. But, I am sure that if the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were willing to pay the difference between ticket revenue and all the capital and operating expenses of a Philadelphia-Chicago train, and if NS was willing to play along, then such a train might be possible. Not very likely to happen, but maybe Moorman can work a miracle!
JIM COX1Once you reestablish rail passenger service between Louisville, Nashville and Chicago, I'll listen to you talk about removing Cincinnati's connection. With the exception of 3 years, Louisville has been without same 37 years and counting. And Nashville hasn't even had that "good" fortune!
Actually, INDot, KYDot, TNDot......can't fund that themselves? Indiana would be the most on the hook financially. Kentucky and Tennessee costs would not be a whole lot given the distance traveled. The problem you will run into further South is both MS and AL are openly hostile to any funding of passenger trains or for that matter mass transit in general.
So you would be stuck at TN Southern Border.
CMStPnPSo you would be stuck at TN Southern Border.
No. Go to Atlanta. Georgia borders TN.
Tony Schill Perhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one. While I would personally like to have an ever-increasing number of intercity trains, one way or another some source of funding (in addition to tickets sold) is needed to cover all of the expenses of operation. Amtrak struggles to get sufficient funding for what service it already operates, and the Pennsylvanian itself wouldn't exist without a large amount of state support. But, I am sure that if the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were willing to pay the difference between ticket revenue and all the capital and operating expenses of a Philadelphia-Chicago train, and if NS was willing to play along, then such a train might be possible. Not very likely to happen, but maybe Moorman can work a miracle!
How heavily used is the old B&O mainline CHI-Pittsburgh as contrasted with the old PRR minline?
schlimm CMStPnP So you would be stuck at TN Southern Border. No. Go to Atlanta. Georgia borders TN.
CMStPnP So you would be stuck at TN Southern Border.
Johnny
However, a CHI-IND-CIN-LEX-Chatt-ATL route would not.
A CHI-IND-LOU-NASH-CHAT-ATL route would briefly dip into AL. But no station there so AL could keep their unneeded $.
This discussion is fun, and the last post in particular shows high knowledge, but what does Alabama have to do with service in Pennsylvania, even if some service changes which might facilitate it concern Louisville, Nashville, and Cincinnati passengers?
Most of the rest of the "Southern" comments belong in the north-central to Florida train-revival discussions, a completely different thread beating a completely different set of horses. More importantly, they have more than nothing to do with the specific topic of this particular thread, no matter what Broadway route comes to be a topic of discussion...
Tony SchillPerhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one.
Much, much easier to get done. Just need some track work in Pittsburgh to accomdate the move. Amtrak controls the rest...
Adding trains to existing routes takes much longer and requires funding come from somewhere to pay for it. Amtrak also has to scrounge equipment.
Adding trains to new routes is very hard, in most cases.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The Cardinal would be better off as two day trains split in Cincinnati. Can't be more than a handful of through passengers. They can hotel it in Cincy.
Amtrak was not even able to get agreement and funding to run the Texas Eagle through to LAX on a daily schedule, with a connecting train from New Orleans to San Antonio. This does to speak well for any upgrades for the long distance trains.
There probably are not going to be any additions to the long distance train network. We will be lucky to hang on to the current system.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder? If other states can have free train service from Congress, why shouldn't Philly and Chicago? If they can't afford it, time to get rid of some crap to afford it.
RME This discussion is fun, and the last post in particular shows high knowledge, but what does Alabama have to do with service in Pennsylvania, even if some service changes which might facilitate it concern Louisville, Nashville, and Cincinnati passengers? Most of the rest of the "Southern" comments belong in the north-central to Florida train-revival discussions, a completely different thread beating a completely different set of horses. More importantly, they have more than nothing to do with the specific topic of this particular thread, no matter what Broadway route comes to be a topic of discussion...
All true, but threads have a life of their own: eg., the cans vs. pop dispenser deviance on the recent Ed Ellis thread.
Also, are any of the former lines east from Chicago underused or abandoned but intact? There were so many: B&O, PRR (2), ERIE, NKP, NYC, three of which went directly to Pittsburgh.
Philly Amtrak Fan Tony Schill Perhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one. While I would personally like to have an ever-increasing number of intercity trains, one way or another some source of funding (in addition to tickets sold) is needed to cover all of the expenses of operation. Amtrak struggles to get sufficient funding for what service it already operates, and the Pennsylvanian itself wouldn't exist without a large amount of state support. But, I am sure that if the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were willing to pay the difference between ticket revenue and all the capital and operating expenses of a Philadelphia-Chicago train, and if NS was willing to play along, then such a train might be possible. Not very likely to happen, but maybe Moorman can work a miracle! Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder? If other states can have free train service from Congress, why shouldn't Philly and Chicago? If they can't afford it, time to get rid of some crap to afford it.
There are substantial funding differences between state-supported trains and national Amtrak routes.
Illinois, like many other states, recently had to start paying higher subsidies in order to continue providing local Amtrak service to its residents. The increased state costs come as a result of a 2008 federal law, called the Passenger Rail Investment and Improvement Act, that required many states to pick up a bigger part of the tab for 28 Amtrak routes that are shorter than 750 miles. Those routes cross 19 states and carry almost half of Amtrak's passengers. The law took effect Oct. 2013. As a result, state payments to Amtrak increased from $186 million in 2013 to $238 million last year (2014). State subsidies and fares on state-supported routes make up about 30 percent of Amtrak's revenue. Amtrak service levels, though, did not increase. link
Since CHI-NYP via PHL would be over 750 miles, there is no requirement for states to cover the costs.
oltmannd Tony Schill Perhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one. Much, much easier to get done. Just need some track work in Pittsburgh to accomdate the move. Amtrak controls the rest... Adding trains to existing routes takes much longer and requires funding come from somewhere to pay for it. Amtrak also has to scrounge equipment. Adding trains to new routes is very hard, in most cases.
Tony Schill Perhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one.
One switch at Pittsburgh is all it takes, track-wise, and that's in NS's hands.
There's an equipment shortfall that's holding it back. The 2010 PIP specified certain types of equipment that won't exist in the numbers required until the Viewliner IIs are a thing.
Philly Amtrak Fan Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder?
Pennsylvani, Ohio, and the others shouldn't have to pay the difference. Does West Virginia pay any money for Byrd Crap? Do those states that almost no one lives in pay any money for the Empire Builder?
Philly Amtrak Fan If other states can have free train service from Congress, why shouldn't Philly and Chicago? If they can't afford it, time to get rid of some crap to afford it.
If other states can have free train service from Congress, why shouldn't Philly and Chicago? If they can't afford it, time to get rid of some crap to afford it.
While neither Philly or Chicago are states, both have "free" train service. Problem solved.
schlimm Tony Schill Perhaps a through car or two on the Pennsylvanian and Capitol Limited is a more realistic alternative, albeit not a great one. While I would personally like to have an ever-increasing number of intercity trains, one way or another some source of funding (in addition to tickets sold) is needed to cover all of the expenses of operation. Amtrak struggles to get sufficient funding for what service it already operates, and the Pennsylvanian itself wouldn't exist without a large amount of state support. But, I am sure that if the states of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana and Illinois were willing to pay the difference between ticket revenue and all the capital and operating expenses of a Philadelphia-Chicago train, and if NS was willing to play along, then such a train might be possible. Not very likely to happen, but maybe Moorman can work a miracle! How heavily used is the old B&O mainline CHI-Pittsburgh as contrasted with the old PRR minline?
While I am not a railroad executive, so my insight towards the line might be labed as "clueless" by some, I do have a unique prespective of the line that one can not get from Youtube. It is pretty busy, think of it as CSX's version of NS's NYC trackage accross Indiana and Ohio. Right now it could handle an Amtrak each way, 2 years ago, no chance without major delays.
What are the observed bookings and consists right now for the Cardinal ? Any sell outs ?
n012944 Philly Amtrak Fan If other states can have free train service from Congress, why shouldn't Philly and Chicago? If they can't afford it, time to get rid of some crap to afford it. While neither Philly or Chicago are states, both have "free" train service. Problem solved.
Obviously I meant a free route between Philly and Chicago. No city between Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (including Harrisburg and Lancaster) has a federally funded train to Chicago, only state supported trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.