Overnight Northeast to Chicago service?

Hi, I have a purely hypothetical service question. Suppose Amtrak* wanted to provide overnight service from Chicago to one of NYP, PHL, or WAS. Is it at all possible, even assuming no intermediate stops, to run a schedule that allows travelers to go to sleep as the train pulls out in the evening, and awake upon arrival at their destination in the early morning, à la the Federal?

(Yes, the Federal accomplishes this by stretching out the trip by making nearly every available stop between WAS and BOS, but the trip is much shorter. Even a 7 PM - 7 AM schedule would shatter Golden Age records set by the Broadway Limited and 20th Century Limited.)

This service would mainly be targeted at the time-conscious; either business travelers going to a full day of meetings, or tourists wanting to maximize the amount of their vacations spent at their destinations and thus minimize the amount of time spent on getting there.** Not your typical Amtrak LD passengers! Still, it seems like this is a market that can be best served at the present time by rail.

Thoughts?




* Or anyone else, but I'm trying not to stray too far into the realm of fantasy.

** This mitigates towards making NYP the eastern endpoint, but unless the routing is via the ex-NYC, an NYP-bound train would almost certainly join the NEC at Zoo interlocking in Philadelphia, and running nonstop without even a by-your-leave at North Philadelphia (which is suboptimal, seeing how crappy that station is) makes little economic/operational sense. Probably better to terminate at 30th Street and allow for connections, but then again I'm probably biased, and these are unnecessary details.

Nice thought, but under present conditions, no.

Here's the arithmatic:

Via Lake Shore route: 959miles/12hrs=79.9MPH

Via Three Rivers route: 908miles/12hrs=75.6MPH

Maintaining 75 and 80 MPH averages over those distances requires long stretches of 100+MPH running, because the train would have to slow for curves, junctions, etc., and stop for fuel at least once--that means Northeast Corridor-level infrastructure all the way.

More to the point, non-stop LD service defeats the economy of passenger trains, which get much of their revenue from intermediate-point travelers. Even if the infrastructure were available, it'd be a money-losing proposition.

Suppose Amtrak wanted

Let's stop right there. Who says Amtrak doesn't "want" to run fast trains?

<i>More to the point, non-stop LD service defeats the economy of passenger trains, which get much of their revenue from intermediate-point travelers.</i>

On the LSL & #40/#41 this is much less true; LSL & #40/#41 does carry a large number of CHI-PHL and CHI-NYP passengers. The question is whether those passengers generate enough revenue to keep the train.

It's not actually that far fetched. Let's suppose instead of trying to do a 12hr schedule, let's go for 14 hrs -- leave Eastbound at 7pm CT as a dinner train and arriving at 8am ET (Philadelphia), 10am ET (New York); Westbound as 7pm NYP dinner train, 9pm PHL and arriving at 8am CT. This would mean we'd have to cover the 908 miles in 14 hours = a much more managable 65 mph. This train had also better be all sleeper, carry a "movie car", a "bar car", and well maybe two commuter coaches where you can sell all 102 seats at $10 per seat.

How'd we do average of 65mph? Well, there is little doubt that either of the lines through Indiana and Ohio can't run at 100mph (with a bunch of FRA waviers, a diesel version of GG-1 with appropriate battering ram apparatus, about 1,500 hp per car, and track capacity to hell, so that would put us (Eastbound) at a crew-change stop in Pittsburgh at 1am ET. Let's suppose we manage to leave at 1.30am, we'd still need to run the next 380 miles to Philly at an average of 58 mph. Probably not impossible if you get CLEAR signals all the way, and run at full 110 mph from Harrisburg. Of course, you will need more FRA waviers and you might derail, but it's not impossible.

The problem here is not so much the technical feasibility question; it's more one of costs. Firstly the freight trains you would be delaying by running one train at 100mph through a string of them alone would guarentee that your operating revenues probably won't meet the costs. Then there's the other things like equipment and crew and creature comforts. Even UPS doesn't try to run their trains faster than 60mph on Conrail, and they pay well. The chances that a passenger train can generate enough cash do 60mph is minimal, let alone 100mph. Hey, don't get me wrong, if you paid the costs, Conrail would love to have an 100mph passenger train running on their network. The money you'd pay would probably be enough for them to go build a third track all the way from Chicago to Harrisburg.

AEM7902 wrote:The question is whether those passengers generate enough revenue to keep the train.

A fine question, one that was answered by . . . wait for it . . . the Three Rivers.

When this train first ran CHI-NYP, it made 2 stops between PGH and CHI--none in Ohio. Today it also stops in Akron, Fostoria and Youngstown. Good thing, too, since Youngstown now has no airline service.

Thanks, all, for the replies. I'm not well-versed in track conditions and capacities west of Harrisburg, so the technical discussion is most enlightening.

OK, so this is infeasible with New York as the terminus. What <i>would</i> be a plausible average speed, given track conditions and freight railroad cooperation? 63 MPH? (764 mi/12 hr CHI-WAS via Capitol Limited) 68 MPH? ((908-91) mi/12 hr CHI-PHL via Three Rivers) My naïve assumption is that most of the track in question is 79 MPH mainline track for one of NS or CSX, modulo junctions which are slower but not as time-consuming as a stop.

As for the economics of the service, it is true that the economic advantage of standard LD service is the ability to serve intermediate-point markets. However, this is hardly the <i>only</i> unique advantage of intercity rail. This type of service would rely on the fact that rail is the only mode on which sleeping is at all desirable. (Airliners are uncomfortable, autos require alertness.) It relies on proper marketing, but is, in my opinion, viable, so long as heroic measures are not required to allocate rolling stock (ha!, but they're working on that) or to operate the train in a timely manner.

And as a brief note, I grew up in Ohio, along the Cardinal between Hamilton and Cincinnati. The stops there are scheduled such that the existence of an Amtrak train in our market was regarded as an interesting piece of trivia more than a travel option. Intermediate-point revenue can be a factor, but only where conditions allow for it to be significant.

AEM7902 wrote:The "Cornfield" stops on the Three Rivers are next to useless.

Says who? In In fiscal 2003, Amtrak had 1,814 riders in Fostoria (up 35% from the previous year), 3,612 in Youngstown (up 26%) and 6,842 in Akron. (up 34%).

If you are going to make the argument that any incremental revenue is valuable, then I would ask the question:Why . . . is there no publicly advertized stops in Willard, OH; Garrett, IN, and a variety of other locations that would, like Fostoria, generate 2-3 passengers per day?

Why "isn't" there? That's easy. Because you don't bash stops into existence.

If enough people in "Variety, OH" want an Amtrak stop, they can get one. But it does take work on their part. Amtrak doesn't build, reburb or patrol stations and platforms--those are the town's responsibility. I would recommend that some enterprising resident of Variety call Amtrak and start learning Amtrak's requirements for a station stop. Do the economic spadework to make the case for a stop. Take the case to the town council. Submit a proposal with all the i's dotted and t's crossed And once Amtrak expresses interest. get cracking on the physical improvements. That's how Mineola, Texas, got an Amtrak stop--with initiative, discipline, intelligence and local investment.

Now then, which town did we have in mind?

<i>Says who? In In fiscal 2003, Amtrak had 1,814 riders in Fostoria (up 35% from the previous year)</i>

1814/365 = about 5 passengers per day. I wasn't far off with my estimate of 2-3 paxs/day. It's useless, says me. Those 5 passengers (2-3 in the winter, 6-7 in the summer) are probably paying fares that are typical for that sort of market: FOS-CHI on railsale at $15; FOS-PHL with a PHL-BOS link for something like $106 (when PHL-BOS portion is $86 -- so essentially the FOS-PHL leg was sold at $20). If you assume every passenger boarded at FOS paid an average fare of $30 (and this is generous), $30*1814 is $54,420 per year. That's barely enough to pay for the insurance and utilities on the building. I call that a useless station. Rmemeber, in those calculations, we have assumed the cost of the train is sunk. That's not an accurate economic analysis.

<i>...it does take work on their part. Amtrak doesn't build, reburb or patrol stations and platforms--those are the town's responsibility.</i>

I disagree, when most of the incremental revenue will go to Amtrak, and most people who use a "cornfield" Amtrak stop probably doesn't pay taxes in the town in question. In fact, some people who use the "cornfield" stops might not even be residents in the state. Cornfield stop locations should be determined based on best interests of Amtrak, not of the town in question. If an existing train has a schedule that will generate significant ridership from a cornfield stop, it should get put in. If the schedule (as constrained by major cities) can't serve the stop well, then I say pull the stop and save the insurance.

Oh, which towns. Garrett, IN; Willard, OH; Tiffin, OH; Defiance, OH. These towns serve as "Park & Ride" stops for most of the cornfield, if the schedules can be made to match. And I mean flag stops, at most an Amshelter, not full-blown waiting rooms like there is at Fostoria. Those things cost too much.

AEM7902 wrote:Those 5 passengers (2-3 in the winter, 6-7 in the summer) are probably paying fares that are typical for that sort of market: FOS-CHI on railsale at $15

RailSale fares are not "typical." UTU reported, via Reuters, that Amtrak sells about 65,000 tickets a day, but only about 400 on RailSale. Start with a bad premise, and it doesn't matter how much number-crunching you do.

If you assume every passenger boarded at FOS paid an average fare of $30

Better not. See above.

<i>...it does take work on their part. Amtrak doesn't build, reburb or patrol stations and platforms--those are the town's responsibility.</i>

I disagree

That's fine, but this ain't Hollywood Squares. The fact is, Amtrak is not in the business of building, refurbishing or patrolling stations and platforms. Not in the non-NEC portion of the United States derisively and incorrectly described as "cornfield."

and most people who use a "cornfield" Amtrak stop probably doesn't pay taxes in the town in question.

Would there be facts to back that up? Remember, the stated goal here is to "analyze facts."

Now about those towns: Here are population figures from the 1990 census.

• Garrett, IN: 5,349
  Willard, OH: 6,210
  Tiffin, OH: 18,604
  Defiance, OH: 16,768

Compare with:

• Nappanee, IN: 5,510
  Fostoria, OH: 14,983
  Youngstown, OH: 95,732
  Akron, OH: 223,019

I don't think 12 or 14 hours are practical under current conditions, but 16 hours could be achievable again if it weren't for all the freight traffic. I say this because on my last trip west on the LSL in 1993, we left NYP :40 late and arrived at CLE OT, where we sat 30 minutes waiting for a crew. We still managed to arrive in CHI 30 minutes early (including the reversing move).

Obviously there was (and still is plenty of padding in the LSL schedule). We made up 1:40 en route. Reduce dwell times in ALB, BUF and CLE and another hour is gained. You're just about there.

Observation 2: The DOT HSR plan calls for routes between NYP and BUF, CLE and CHI and PHL and PGH (NYP-PHL is already high-speed). If by some miracle these are ever built, you'll see trip times of 6 hours or better, NYP-BUF, 5 hours or better, CLE-CHI and 6.5 hours or better, NYP - PGH. You only need about 3 hours to cover BUF-CLE or PGH-CLE (Ohio has a plan calling for these to become high-speed lines, as well). Add up running times for the various line segments and you get 14 hours for the LSL (6+3+5=11) and 14.5 hours for the Three Rivers (6.5+3+5=14.5)

Restoring overnight service NYP/PHL-CHI makes train a viable alternative for the business traveler, provided you can offer a premium service that offers good value (save a night's stay in a Chicago hotel). You wouldn't need everyone who now flies from LaGuardia to O'Hare, just enough to fill a few hundred sleeping car compartments.

The eastbound and westbound departures between Chicago and New York Penn are my least favorite of all the schedules Amtrak had in place between these two cities. Course the 12:15 p.m. eastbound departure of the Lake Shore Limited was the worst. I favored the early evening departure and mid-day arrival. Spacing out the departures of the Three Rivers and Lake Shore Limited would expand options. I know - there's more to the train schedule than the endpoints! That's where a second frequency would make most sense.

The Capitol Limited's schedule between Chicago and DC is much better. Allows for a full day's work before catching the train out of the city and then at least a half day's work upon arriving the next day (barring any major delays).

Perhaps Amtrak should at least try a second frequency for the Lake Shore - a mid-day departure and an evening departure. With some marketing, cooperation from the freight railroads, and a second frequency it just might work. Course speeding up the schedule would make it all the better, but I don't see that happening in the present state of things, or a second frequency either, for that matter. Working on getting trains in and out of Albany and some other choke points might help achieve this, but no dramatic improvements I am afraid.

As for the Three Rivers - How the eastbound Three Rivers attracts ridership between Pittsburgh and Philly, while competing with the Pennsylvanian, is remarkable - let alone no diner. There's less than three hours difference in their departure times. This is just adding nails to the coffin in my opinion. The Sunday schedule seems better, but I realize the State of PA wants a reliable train that departs its origin in the early morning and arrives at its destination late afternoon. Overall though, the Three Rivers timekeeping isn't too horrendous - it shouldn't be with all the padding! I'd have the Three Rivers depart Chicago at 9:00 p.m. and Pittsburgh at 8:00 a.m.. Then have the Pennsylvanian on its Sunday schedule (departing Pitt at 1:30 p.m.).

Will we ever be able to achieve a 16-hour schedule like the PRR's Broadway Limited or NYC's 20th Century Limited? I would sure hope so - but it gets more and more distant in the past.

jp1822 wrote:Perhaps Amtrak should at least try a second frequency for the Lake Shore

A 2nd frequency would be my goal, too, but David Gunn's is not the ear to chew on. Anything Amtrak might "try" must be approved in writing by the Secretary of Transportation, Norman Y. Mineta. Perhaps Amtrak supporters should at least write him.

The "Mineta Moratorium" is a remnant of the punitive spirit that guided the Amtrak "Reform" Council--just as Mr. Mineta himself, a Democrat, is a remnant of the spirit of bipartisanship to which the president pledged himself in the 2000 campaign ("changing the tone") and reaffirmed upon taking office.

State supported trains , along portions of the route , could be added , ( i believe the moratoruim excludes state supported trains if there is no cost to Amtrak ). So lobbying the individual states as well might be a good idea .

State-supported services along the Lake Shore route are a tall order, IMHO. The original incarnation of the Lake Shore, which ran from mid-1971 to Jan. 1972, was a 403-b train, but service stopped when one of the states along the route failed to come up with its share of the money.

State governments are primarily interested in their indigenous transportation needsOn an intrastate, states along the route have little incentive to fund Amtrak service.

New York is well covered by the Empire Corridor, for which Amtrak - in an anamoly - still picks up most of the tab; Empire was a component of the original national system.

Pennsylvania would have little interest since Erie is the city along the route within the Keystone state.

Ohio might want to sponsor service between Cleveland and Toledo, but there is more interest in getting service on the 3C's route: Cleveland - Columbus - Cincinnati.

Indiana already has the South Shore paralleling most of the route.

Having said that are, there may be some interest in two state-supported interstate operations, Cleveland - Buffalo - New York, and Cleveland - Toledo - South Bend - Chicago. But these require multistate coordination, and the states do not have the same priorities.

However, that shouldn't stop Ohio, if it were so inclined from supporting a 403-b run to Chicago on its own. While it would benefit from Indiana's support, remember the Pere Marquette (Grand Rapids - Chicago) and Blue Water (Port Huron) are supported solely by Michigan without any contribution from the Hoosiers. And, I would encourage such a train to stop in places like Waterloo, Elkhart, South Bend and Hammong - Whiting because the revenue they would generate would more than offset the incremental cost of making the stops, which is next to nothing.

Ohio could also offer to fund a Cleveland - Buffalo connection to the Empire Corridor, but it would also have to persuade New York State to support rerouting one of the trains that now runs to Niagara Falls so it could offer through Cleveland - New York service.

David Benton wrote:State supported trains , along portions of the route , could be added . . . So lobbying the individual states as well might be a good idea .

You bet. Particularly since it worked so bloody well in . . . wait for it . . . New Zealand.

TV3, on 15 October 2001, wrote: The Southerner's journey will soon be over... local and regional councils have rejected a plan for them to subsidise the service and that's disappointed the Dunedin MP who helped stitch the deal together.

"Their preparedness to open the chequebook hasn't quite matched the rhetoric that they were bringing to the issues," says David Benson-Pope.

Read the full text here.