Amtrak Capitol Limited Thread

[David Benton]

JP1822 , I like your idea of running a portion of the capitol ltd to Harrisburg . Does Harrisburg have low level platforms ?.
the way i would do it is have the superliner equipment same day turn at Harrisburg , back to Chicago . The existing eastbound 42 would become the new capitol connection schedule . Then a 2nd frequency could be introduced , perhaps on the sunday schedule of 44 .
westbound , 43 would remain on its existing schedule , with the new capitol connection following from Harrisburg some 3 hours later . Arrivng Pittsburg 10 pm for connection to the Capitol .

[The Metropolitan]

JP1822 , I like your idea of running a portion of the capitol ltd to Harrisburg . Does Harrisburg have low level platforms ?

Sure does - in fact I think it only has one high platform that is not used to a great degree.

[amusing erudition]

In the few dozen times I've been to Harrisburg Union Station, we've almost always come in on the high platform; it is, in my estimation based on that experience, the most used platform at the station for ease of boarding and accessibility reasons. It's been used for every train to and from the west (be it Three Rivers or Pennsylvanian) and nearly every arriving Keystone train I've used. Departing Keystones not so much, but not so little either. That's just one rider's experience though.

Harrisburg's layout is (if I'm not mistaken)

(12)p(3)4p56P78p9pAB

P-high-level platform
p-low-level platform
A-track 10
B-track 11
()-removed

Assuming no wire problems, you could easily use any of tracks 4 (which sits not technically platformed, I don't think, halfway in between the former track 3 and 4 trackways, but is in use from wooden platform extensions), 8, or 9 for low-level trains. And track 5 is occupied by PRR 4859. The track numbering I've used is original, but since things have been removed, I don't know what they are numbered now.

I think a Superliner east to Hbg. with a timed transfer to a Keystone operating on the train 42/43 (or perhaps a little later than 43) schedule and a single-level train operating on the train 44 schedule and an earlier-than-43 schedule would work just fine. As far as holding it in Pittsburgh, can someone explain why they can't just have it leave later from Chicago? Is the turn that tight at Washington? The westbound 11:45 pm time isn't great, but not nearly as bad as 4 am.

-asg

[jp1822]

I've had the opposite experience, most of my trains in and out of Harrisburg have come in on the lowlevel platform(s) -with the brickwalkway. A couple of times while on Keystones, yes, I've board via high level. But Pennsylvanian and Three Rivers, most of my experience in Harrisburg has been coming in on the low level platforms at Harrisburg for these trains.

So Harrisburg - like Washington DC, still has high and low level platforms - course Washington DC Union Station is much more of a larger complex!

[The Metropolitan]

Interesting reponses. I've only been through Harrisburg thrice, but all three times on the low platform. Two of these were the result of the need to accomodate a patron in a wheelchair with the lift mechanism.

Speaking of which, on my last trip into the station, the Conductor was walking through with his radio "broadcasting" the exchange between Engineer and Tower Operator regarding the need to berth at the low platform due to the patron in the wheelchair. IIRC, he requested entry into "Track #8" but we came in on the track you list as Track #9. Since either original track #8 or #9 would suffice, I'm not sure if they've been renumbered slightly, or if his request and the discretion of the Tower Operator varied.

Off the tangent, though, I do like the idea of a split CL terminating at HBG. It would be able to be turned same day with decent slack, but #30 would probably need to have a 2 hour delay from Chitown to schedule an arrival in PGH no earlier than 6:15am. Likewise, a one hour adjustment forward on #29 to a 10:30pm arrival in PGH might be a bit more suitable.

This could open the door for a second PGH-HBG train leaving HBG in the am - maybe 7am, and then returning from PGH in mid afternoon, say 230pm?

As to the turning of the CL in WAS, both times I've taken the time to observe it, the arriving set from a particular day does NOT leave out that same day to return. Not sure about manpower though.

[amusing erudition]

Might as well make the second train a single-level train through to New York or at least Philadelphia, the current Pennsylvanian. Or give it a nice retro name from the PRR list.

. Two of these were the result of the need to accomodate a patron in a wheelchair with the lift mechanism.

Why would they have a need to accommodate a wheelchair passenger using the lift? Why not just use the high-level platform to begin with? I was fairly sure there were elevators from that platform to the bridge.

-asg

[David Benton]

Might as well make the second train a single-level train through to New York or at least Philadelphia, the current Pennsylvanian. Or give it a nice retro name from the PRR list.

The idea of turning it at Harrisburg is to allow same day turn of the superliner equipment . Operation through to New York would require 2 sets of equipment , Amtrak doesn't have the spare viewliners to do this .
Unless you mean the 2nd train been the one that does not connect to the capitol , then yes it would make sense for that to be a through train , using the existing equipment .

[amusing erudition]

Yes, that is what I meant. Sum:

1 train CHI-PGH-WAS/HAR of Superliners
connect in HAR to a train HAR-NYP of Amfleets
1 train PGH-NYP of Amfleets, day only

In fact, if you pushed the (for lack of a better name) Pennsylvanian earlier westbound and kept the Sunday schedule eastbound for all seven days, you could extend it to be daytime service Cleveland-NYP to make up partially for the terrible Capitol Ltd. and LSL times at Cleveland. And then the westbound train to connect to the Capitol could be moved a little later, maybe depart NYC around 11:30 instead of 10.

As to killing the Capitol as an overall idea, I'd say quite the opposite: that PGH-WAS is probably strong enough for a second train, especially if the times weren't so awful. And also if they could add some stations back in: McKeesport and Hancock, Md., and maybe some others. Station density is horrible on that route. Only two intermediate stations between Pittsburgh and Washington commuter rail territory.

-asg

[The Metropolitan]

Of course, if you split section the Cap, you'll have to rename it the CaptiolS Limited, since it's terminating at two Capitols now.

Only reason I suggested a possible additional frequency be HBG-PGH was that it could be done with a single consist, and would be reasonably easy to crew. Of course, the consist would likely have to swap out with Keystones at regular intervals in HBG in order to run through major servicing stations, so it may actually make more sense to simply "interline" it with a Keystone frequency, so quite likely, NYP-PGH would be good.

I'd love to see a better schedule for CLE, and your idea sounds to have some possibilties too. It would also be nice to see a 5:00-5:30 arrival in PGH. On a good day, you could ACTUALLY connect with one of the TWO PAT Light Rail trips into Penn Station! How about that for Intermodal!?

[David Benton]

no doubt the question of funding will arise . The Pittsburg - Harrisburg connection of the Capitol ltd , is in one state . It should be fairly easy to sell as a 403 b funded train . after all for a 200 mile 2 way extra service , they effectively double service to Pittsburgh , and gain a through service to Chicago .
Extending that service to Cleveland , while a good idea , makes it a 2 state service , and too a state that (to my knowledge) has never funded an amtrak service .

[The Metropolitan]

True indeed, Ohio is not a particularly Amtrak helpful state. In some small way, I'm glad for this, as it illustrates the reason why the passing of rail services to individual states has its faults, as one tight-pocketed state can stand in the way of what could be a really beneficial and convenient service.

Here's a small question though - how would you handle the split? Would it be like the TE/Sunset and EB and is physically split at PGH, or would you have a shuttle train waiting on the side track similar to the LSL at Albany. Keep in mind that PGH's platform for the Capitol is along the main and not off to the side, so a protracted switching move would probably not be too warmly welcomed by NS.

[amusing erudition]

Well how long does it take to split or combine trains? It's done in 45 minutes in Spokane. The Capitol already sits 15 minutes in Pittsburgh. Another 30's not too bad.

Further, NS has a track, former track 2, that's completely separate from the station complex to serve as a bypass during that time which is pretty much the freight main through Pittsburgh Pennsylvania Station anyway. Amtrak uses mostly former tracks 6 (through) and 7 (stub). Former track 5 is still there, but tracks 3 and 4 are a parking lot, separating track 2 nicely.

-asg

[Sam Damon]

Yes, that is what I meant. Sum:

1 train CHI-PGH-WAS/HAR of Superliners
connect in HAR to a train HAR-NYP of Amfleets
1 train PGH-NYP of Amfleets, day only

In fact, if you pushed the (for lack of a better name) Pennsylvanian earlier westbound and kept the Sunday schedule eastbound for all seven days, you could extend it to be daytime service Cleveland-NYP to make up partially for the terrible Capitol Ltd. and LSL times at Cleveland. And then the westbound train to connect to the Capitol could be moved a little later, maybe depart NYC around 11:30 instead of 10.

Let's make some scribbles on the back of an envelope.

Currently, #29, by the public timetable, is allowed 2:36 between Pittsburgh and Cleveland; #30 is allowed 3:15 between Cleveland and Pittsburgh. These numbers undoubtably include Amtrak's slop factor for freight train interference; for the sake of argument, let's just say 3:00 both ways.

If we extend #44 on a daily basis out to Cleveland, by the public timetable, this would mean the EB train would depart CLE at 10:20a. Likewise, if one were to extend #43 to CLE, this would put arrival there at 10:05p. I'm not sure where in Cleveland one could park a consist for cleaning and servicing at the end of the run these days.

Interesting analysis, I'd say. Aside from funding new service frequencies, the real issue is that NS may be considerably less than thrilled with this new use of their railroad.

[amusing erudition]

You would probably be parking it longer because you would want to separate the two trains a little more than that. Depart New York around 7am with the single-level for example and you can get to Pittsburgh around 4 pm and Cleveland around 7pm. Depart New York around noon with a Keystone to connect in Harrisburg to the Commonwealth-Capitol Limited and you get to Pittsburgh around 9 pm (Cleveland much later after waiting for the National-Capitol Limited). 43 would be too late for the Pennsylvanian on a two-train setup but it's already too early a schedule for the Capitol connection in Pittsburgh.

As to Cleveland, there's obviously somewhere the states are considering for their far-on-the-horizon Midwest Regional project. It might not exist yet, but it will. They would probably host Amtrak for a reasonable cost. Until then, what kind of facilities do they need? Not a station track I would hope.

-asg

[Lucius Kwok]

On Friday night, there was a derailment of 23 ethanol cars on the Norfolk Southern main line in New Brighton, PA, northwest of Pittsburgh.

The derailment was affecting Amtrak's Capitol Limited, which makes one round trip daily between Washington, D.C., and Chicago. Until that section of track reopens, each one-way trip will take about 2½ hours longer because the train is being detoured onto some short line tracks between Pittsburgh and Cleveland, Amtrak spokesman Cliff Black said.

Recorders Found in Pa. Train Wreck

Some 50 to 70 freight trains also use those tracks each day.