# All Aboard Ohio Ideas



## Seaboard92 (Nov 23, 2015)

I keep reading about their ideas so I just took some time to read their reports and I have to say it is fascinating. So without further ado I'm going to break it down, and see what you guys think of it.



> [SIZE=10pt]Daily Cardinal: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The annual operating subsidy for this Chicago-Cincinnati-New York City train could increase by $2 million per year but cut the loss per passenger by 31 percent and boost ridership 96 percent (per Amtrak 2010 Performance Improvement Plan). Amtrak may soon have the equipment necessary for this expansion. No additional infrastructure capacity may be needed beyond what is being added now in Virginia and Indiana. [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=10pt]Annual Cost 2M Annual economic impact 240M[/SIZE]


I see this as being a no brainer, the current ridership on the tri weekly train is at 113,103. So going up 96 percent brings it up to around 239,676 riders a year. And for an additional two million that I see being quickly offset. I'm wondering what would happen if the Cardinal would then move to a timetable more convenient for Cincinnati what would happen to ridership.



> [SIZE=10pt]Pennsylvanian restoration to Chicago via Detroit: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Based on running cars through Pittsburgh to Chicago on the Capitol Limited, the annual operating subsidy could be $700,000 per year, but cut the loss per passenger 15 percent and boost ridership 9 percent (per Amtrak 2010 Performance Improvement Plan). Amtrak in 2014 considered extending the Pennsylvanian west of Pittsburgh to Chicago via Detroit as an independent train with little or no added subsidy. Amtrak may soon have the equipment necessary for this expansion. However, traffic capacity enhancements between Dearborn and Pittsburgh may be required for this expansion as would a new track connection at Ravenna to route this service via Youngstown which has 12 times more population than the existing Cleveland-Pittsburgh Amtrak route through Alliance. [/SIZE]
> 
> Start Up Cost 40-119M. Annual Cost 700,000. Economic Impact 460M


I believe their number is for the thru cars that we're studied back in 2010. I see the route as having some promise, but I'm still thinking the route via Buffalo might have more ridership. But I'm open to any ideas on that. I like the idea of routing via Youngstown, but I hate that it involves CSX. So I don't see much happening with that to be honest.



> [SIZE=10pt]Cincinnati section of Lake Shore Limited: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A 1990 Amtrak study of Service To Areas Not Presently Served proposed operating Cincinnati-Cleveland-New York City cars on the Chicago- Cleveland-New York City/Boston Lake Shore Limited. It would restore Amtrak service to Columbus (the nation's largest metro area without any passenger rail service) and Dayton for the first time since 1979. Amtrak projected this would be the nation's highest-ridership new service, attracting 133,000 first-year riders and incurring an operating subsidy of $3.9 million in 1990. Up to a half-dozen en route stations in Ohio could be added. Amtrak may soon have the equipment necessary for this expansion. Grade crossing circuits will need to be lengthened to speed up trains and passenger-funded PTC may be needed Columbus-Galion. Modest capacity enhancements could be added to address traffic choke points with future improvements made to speed up an initially slow schedule. [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 109-189M. Annual cost 6-8M. Economic Impact 756M[/SIZE]


I see several benefits to this. First off it's a LD train over the miles required for state funding so it could be added easier, but I don't see that happening. Two it would give the Three Cs service to the east coast, and serve as a morning train westbound on the corridor and an evening eastbound train. Saving rolling stock for another Ohio corridor train or allowing them to have their base in Cincinnati. Which would be appealing for turning a LD train there. If we go off their timetable which is similar to the one I came up with for the Ohio State Limited (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66222-ohio-state-limited-nyp-buf-cle-cin/) then it might be possible to run this train with only two sets of equipment. Which could be very doable. And they say it would have the largest ridership of new service, so this in my opinion might be our best train to start out with.



> [SIZE=10pt]Three Rivers restoration via Detroit: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Operating on a 12-hour counter-schedule and on the same route as the Pennsylvanian extension (Chicago-Detroit-Pittsburgh-New York City), the Three Rivers would provide daylight service across Ohio and an overnight train to the East Coast. The prior Three Rivers carried 135,000 passengers at an operating loss of $28 million per year due to an unpopulated route west of Akron and high costs from food service and sleeping cars. Service should be restored only if a new operating plan is more cost effective. About 3-4 trainsets of 5-7 cars each may be needed. While stations and PTC are in place, significant additional mainline capacity is likely required to accommodate this train. Also crossing circuits should be lengthened so passenger trains can operate at up to 90 mph on some sections. [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 42-128M. Annual Cost 28-39M. Economic Impact 512M[/SIZE]


I like that it runs exactly 12 hours after their other extension train giving the route twice daily service. But I think there should be a upstate NY train to Michigan. So I propose rerouting this train back from NY via Buffalo. It still gets the daylight service that route. I honestly see this as a Chicago section of the Ohio State Limited or as we call it the New York Nightmare. And in it's place I would give the PRR route a direct train to Chicago via Fort Wayne.



> [SIZE=10pt]Broadway/National Limited restoration: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The National Limited (Kansas City-Columbus-New York City until 1979) and Broadway Limited (Chicago-Fort Wayne-New York City until 1990) were taken from their Ohio cities as a result of the private-sector downgrading their routes. This restoration proposal seeks to combine the best of the remaining segments by operating Chicago- Fort Wayne-Lima-Columbus-Pittsburgh-East Coast. An annual operating subsidy in the $10 million to $15 million range for the portion west of Pittsburgh is possible with through cars on an existing train(s) to the East Coast. Needed are numerous en route station facilities, PTC, new passing sidings and lengthened crossing circuits on almost all sections west of Pittsburgh, major trackwork between Gary, IN and the Illinois state line, new rails west of Dunkirk, OH and about 3- 4 trainsets of 5-7 cars each. [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 93-289M. Annual Cost 10-15M. Economic Impact 1.156 Billion [/SIZE]


I love this idea except for the detour to Columbus. I see why they want to route via Columbus because it would add some major ridership. But the investment it would take in time to and from Columbus from the EX PRR Mainline would be an issue. Their routing has it running over two Regional Railroads PGH-COL which would need major investment. I see this as being a better route going via the EX PRR Mainline further north. And skipping Columbus, even though I think there would be ridership from there to Chicago. It would also give Philly, HAR, and PGH a faster time west to Chicago.



> [SIZE=10pt]Midwest-Florida passenger rail: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]In the year leading up to the May 1, 1971 start of Amtrak, most basic system plans for Amtrak included a Detroit-Cincinnati route. Despite their high ridership and operating performance potential, this was ultimately omitted from the final basic system due to a lack of interest from Ohio's Congressional Delegation. We believe one of the reasons why this was the case was because it did not connect to a Chicago-Florida train called the Floridian which bypassed Ohio. That train was discontinued in 1979 due to poor track conditions. All Aboard Ohio believes that Midwest-Florida rail services that are routed mostly on Norfolk Southern (NS)- owned or NS-leased tracks (the Cincinnati-Chattanooga portion is owned by the City of Cincinnati) between Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Cincinnati-Lexington-Chattanooga-Atlanta- Jacksonville-Orlando (link with All Aboard Florida to Miami and buses to Tampa) would attract significant ridership. The operating subsidy could range from $43 million to $60 million per year and significant capital costs on this route, possibly up to $343 million for passing sidings, rolling stock, track connections in Toledo and Chattanooga, and about 18 new stations are envisioned. [/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 167-343M. Annual Cost 43-60M. Economic Impact 1.372 Billion[/SIZE]


I could majorly see this as a great route. Even though I disagree with some of their routings. I think the train would be better off leaving from Chicago operating via INDY to CIN for this routing. But I still would prefer it to route via Nashville. The other disagreements I have with on their route is I would leave it on the most straight line from Toledo to Cincinnati instead of detouring to Columbus. But if the times would equal out then I would say route it via Columbus. I think it has potential to be a strong route, but it needs some tweaking.

Overall I find their plans very interesting. I think their routings and timings might need some tweaking but it isn't that bad. And I think they might be onto something. And as far as future advocacy for service extensions the economic impact being higher then all costs might be something to tout.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 23, 2015)

When I first saw this report I was thrilled. I'm sure AAO's first concern was Ohio but if Philly and Eastern PA get to join the party I'm on board (no pun intended).

Seaboard92 and Anderson along with others have certainly discussed expansion of service from the East Coast to the Midwest. It seems like we want to add several new trains and I am wondering how many new trains Amtrak would be willing to start once the Viewliner 2's are running. No one likes me talking about "priorities" but I think if we can't add as many trains as we all would be happy with what should we do with the new train(s) we do have.

When it comes to CHI to the East Coast, my first priority is CHI-PHL (extension to NYP encouraged). To me that is non-negotiable, period, end of story. NYP and WAS clearly have their daily direct trains to CHI. The current LSL and CL routes are clearly covered. I don't think it's fair if any of these routes get double covered if there is a major CHI-East Coast route that isn't covered.

My next priorities would be ...

* Michigan to NEC. The Thruway bus works but the times aren't great and I would like to avoid buses if I can so I don't have to deal with road traffic fighting with all of the other cars on highways.

* Non graveyard times for CLE and TOL. This one's pretty obvious.

* 3-C coverage. Ideally it would be stand alone coverage but that's almost impossible under the current laws and it would be a welcome addition for Ohio-NEC service. I am not 100% sold that an exclusive Ohio-NEC service would work yet, I (and AAO) probably think it's better to do it using through cars connecting at CLE to existing trains.

You could reroute the LSL or CL through Michigan but you've cut service to South Bend in half and (at least now) lengthened the trip of either train.

You can probably add through cars to the LSL (which was proposed) or CL without adding a new train between CHI and the NEC but only if the train arrives in CLE at a reasonable hour (don't think a split is reasonable at the current CL or LSL times). You cannot change the CL or LSL to allow for non graveyard times for CLE and TOL (I'd argue you could for the Cardinal to better serve CIN (and IND) but I don't want to cause any more trouble at this point).

I claim that you can handle all four of these wishes with a single CHI-PHL train going through Michigan and with through cars from CLE to CIN (I guess with through cars that counts as two trains). The proposal would be use AAO's Three Rivers schedule and then add the 3-C branch.

Does it make more sense to connect CIN-CLE to the Empire Route? Sure. Does it make more sense to connect Michigan to the Empire Route? Sure. But if you can only add one new train, these three should be added to a first Keystone/Pennsylvanian route to the east coast before a second LSL. If we are adding two or more trains, I wouldn't mind if the extras (Michigan, better times in Ohio, 3-C) get added to second and/or third LSL's. The Empire route clearly is more popular than the Keystone/Pennsylvanian route but I don't think Pennsylvania should be ignored. Ideally I would say 60-75% of new trains could go through New York and the rest to Pennsylvania. But again, if only one is added, Pennsylvania has to IMHO get it.

The AAO proposal adds two trains via PA and no new trains via NY state. I'd certainly be willing to go with one of each as Seaboard92 proposed. If PA gets the extended Pennsylvanian which allows for transfer to western/Texas trains, I would have no problems with their "Three Rivers" being rerouted via NYS instead. Clearly if PHL had to choose one, the extended Pennsylvanian schedule would be the better one due to the transfer opportunities and the fact that the train wouldn't run between PGH and PHL during the graveyard shift (although that would be ideal for PGH and PHL/Jersey/NYP as a second train). I think the reason why they went with two new PA routes can be summarized by three letters... C S X.

Ken Prendergast clearly said in comments:

"First, NS is easier than CSX to deal with when it comes to passenger rail issues. We’d like to avoid CSX as much as possible. ". 

"CSX may be the most openly passenger-hostile Class 1 railroad. We may not even be able to get a 3C train to run on CSX from Berea to Columbus without triggering all sorts of costly CSX nonsense intended to kill it — again. Yes, CSX is who reached out to Gov. Kasich and urged him to kill 3C. So we may have to run a 3C train on NS via Bellevue or wait until new leadership arrives at CSX."

As for a second LSL, I think another thing I would like to see is separate trains for NYP and BOS as opposed to the through cars to BOS. I believe now BOS/Massachusetts passengers have to change trains in Albany now but that's supposedly temporary. If you run two or more trains to CHI along the route from ALB to BUF, why not have separate trains to each city so you don't have to deal with the split anymore? NYP is clearly the #1 east coast market for the LSL but if I were BOS I'd feel like the unwanted stepchild of the LSL. If you have multiple trains along the Empire route, I feel you should be able to have at least one going to BOS without the split/merge or transfer at ALB. It would also help NYP if they didn't have to split/merge with a BOS leg on the train(s) that do go to NYP.

The other proposal I saw was a NYP to Michigan route all day no overnight train. I guess that would take care of the Michigan-NEC service and as long as there's the CL and LSL there would really be no reason to extend that train to CHI (there are multiple trains from Michigan to CHI). I think anything that pushes the start/end closer to 7am and/or midnight would not be ideal though, especially in Detroit.

Probably farther down the road on my wish list would be service from CIN and/or Columbus to PGH and then Pennsylvanian route to PHL/NYP. A CIN route can go CHI-IND-CIN-PGH if there is a reasonable route between CIN and PGH. A Columbus route could go via Ft. Wayne (AAO's proposal had a run time between PGH and CHI via Ft. Wayne/Columbus just under 12 hours, a couple of hours longer than the CL but competitive). I was told Indy to Columbus was a no go. But I think 3-C would be more valuable to CIN and Columbus.

Anderson clearly showed the document from New York DOT about HSR in New York state although I didn't see any mentions of service west of New York. Now once these tracks are built (if they are), clearly there is a huge opportunity for growth in NYS and expansion to CHI and/or Michigan/Ohio would be more attractive to Amtrak. Currently Amtrak does own HAR to NYP. If PA can improve HAR to PGH, maybe that will convince Amtrak to grow service in PA to CHI.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 24, 2015)

I like your priority list with a few exceptions. I would run the Three Rivers not the extended Penn. That way two improvements can be hit. PHL gets their Chicago train. And Ohio gets a day train west of CLE. And for a starter project I think doubling the benefits is the best bet. My second priority would be a version of my New York Nightmare. Except split it in CLE half goes to CIN half goes to DET. My third priority would be the Broadway Limited on it's real time card. Hopefully the other two trains convince IN to help rebuild the CFE line. And route via Fort Wayne. My fourth priority is the day train on the Empire corridor to Michigan and split for the three Cs


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 24, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> I like your priority list with a few exceptions. I would run the Three Rivers not the extended Penn. That way two improvements can be hit. PHL gets their Chicago train. And Ohio gets a day train west of CLE. And for a starter project I think doubling the benefits is the best bet. My second priority would be a version of my New York Nightmare. Except split it in CLE half goes to CIN half goes to DET. My third priority would be the Broadway Limited on it's real time card. Hopefully the other two trains convince IN to help rebuild the CFE line. And route via Fort Wayne. My fourth priority is the day train on the Empire corridor to Michigan and split for the three Cs


I actually agree. I meant to say PHL/Keystone would rather have a traditional schedule train arriving in CHI in the morning to allow transfers over an overnight train between CHI and PHL (Pennsylvanian over Three Rivers using AAO's names). But their Three Rivers does allow for a day train west of CLE (eastbound does get to CLE at night but not graveyard shift) so I would go Three Rivers over Pennsylvanian if only one train because we can kill two birds with one stone (and the TR schedule fits very well with a 3-C branch). If the other issues are taken care of by Empire route trains, I and most of PA (especially HAR and west) would prefer the Pennsylvanian then. But we're at the stage where we'd take almost anything.


----------



## TML (Dec 2, 2015)

The ideas sound great, but I think the only time most of them will receive any serious consideration is after the current governor leaves office. Is anyone with me on this thought?


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Dec 2, 2015)

TML said:


> ... the only time most of the [ideas] will receive any serious consideration is after the current governor leaves office. Is anyone with me on this thought?


Let's not promote him just to get him out of the state. LOL.

The Ohio Governor is limited to two consecutive terms. Kasich was elected in 2010 and re-elected in 2014. So things could change starting January 2019. Or not. But surely not before then.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Dec 12, 2015)

I was thinking more about CIN to NEC service.

According to the 3-C branch to the LSL proposed, the train would leave 5:05pm and arrive in NYP 12:27pm for a time of 19 hr, 22 min. The current Cardinal times from CIN to NYP are 3:27am to 9:58pm, for a time of 18 hr, 31 min. If these are the two trains from CIN to the NEC, the 3-C/LSL through cars would be IMHO the more attractive option if you consider NYP only since the times are way better (and this would be a daily service).

The proposed 3-C branch would require a 1 hr, 9 min wait in CLE to allow for the split/merge with the LSL. If the 3-C ran as a stand alone to NYP without a split/merge, you'd probably be able to cut the 1 hr, 9 min wait in CLE in half. In addition, AAO's proposal has a 50 minute layover in ALB (assumedly to split/merge with the through cars to/from BOS. If you ran CIN-Columbus-CLE-ALB-NYP with shorter wait times in CLE and ALB, you would probably be pretty close to the Cardinal time. You would lose PHL, BAL, and WAS along this route but gain Dayton, Columbus, Cleveland, Buffalo, and upstate NY plus you could run it daily.


To this day I have no idea as to why Amtrak never considered north-south service from CIN to CLE (a service similar to the old Ohio State Limited that Seaboard92 discussed):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohio_State_Limited).
http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66222-ohio-state-limited-nyp-buf-cle-cin/

AAO also proposed Columbus to PGH service. The schedule proposed linked to the CL in PGH so you could have a one seat ride from Columbus to WAS. You could take the 3-C leg north to Columbus and then change trains and go through PGH to WAS

CIN to Columbus: 5:05pm-8:05pm (3 hr)

Columbus to WAS: 11:40pm-1:55pm (14 hr, 15 min)

Total: 5:05pm-1:55pm (20 hr, 50 min with a 3 hr, 33 min layover in Columbus. If you ran a train CIN-Columbus-PGH-WAS without the layover, you can probably get it down to 18 hours. The current Cardinal between CIN and WAS is 3:27am 6:19pm (14 hr, 52 min). So that would be longer to WAS than the current Cardinal by about 3 hours (although you would gain Columbus and Dayton as well as Ohio to PGH passengers).

But let's say you wanted to go from CIN to PHL instead, transferring in Columbus and PGH. Assuming you made the connections listed in their schedule, you'd have

CIN to Columbus: 5:05pm-8:05pm (3 hr)

Columbus to PGH: 11:40pm-5:30am (5 hr, 50 min)

PGH to PHL (current Pennsylvanian): 7:30am 2:55pm (7 hr, 25 min)

PHL to NYP (current Pennsylvanian): 3:25pm 4:50pm (1 hr, 25 min)

The time between CIN and NYP would be almost 22 hours (21 hr, 50 min) and requires two transfers, one in Columbus (with a 3 hr, 35 min layover) and one in PGH (2 hr layover). If we ran through CIN-Columbus-PGH-PHL-NYP, you're looking around 17 hours which is very comparable to the Cardinal (3:27am-8:26pm, 16 hrs, 57 min). Assuming you didn't run an Ohio State Limited, the train to NYP would be around 19 hours this way as well. You would lose Washington and Baltimore but gain Dayton, Columbus, PGH and all of the Pennsylvanian route between PGH and PHL (both routes serve PHL).

Unfortunately diverting any CHI-NEC service via CIN is going to cause a huge increase in time vs. going through CLE. The question is what is the "best" way to get from CIN to the NEC?

For now, let's assume Amtrak could do all three.

1) CIN-West Virginia-Virginia-WAS-PHL-NYP (Current Cardinal)
2) CIN-Dayton-Columbus-PGH-PHL-NYP (Proposed AAO routes to current Pennsylvanian)
3) CIN-Dayton-Columbus-CLE-BUF-ALB-NYP (Proposed AAO 3-C to LSL)

The Cardinal is the quickest from CHI to WAS. But option 2 would be comparable to the Cardinal for PHL and NYP and serve Dayton, Columbus, and Pittsburgh.while option 3 (Ohio State Limited type train) would be comparable to the Cardinal for NYP and serve 3C as well as the Water Route. While option #2 would be about as slow as the Cardinal between CHI and PHL, it would give PHL, New Jersey, and CIN daily service to CHI as opposed to three days per week, the markets between PGH and PHL direct service to CHI again, and Dayton and Columbus service period.

If Option 2 was in addition to the Cardinal, does it seem reasonable? If the Iowa Pacific experiment with the Hoosier State fails, this train could also be your daily between CHI and IND.


----------

