# Amtrak ConnectUS Announcement and Detailed Document



## jis (May 27, 2021)

Amtrak Seeks To Bring More Rail Service To More Communities - Amtrak Media


WASHINGTON – Amtrak is initiating the work to deliver by 2035 more frequent, reliable and sustainable intercity passenger rail service to over 160 more communities and 20 million more passengers annually, as outlined in the Amtrak Corridor Vision released today. To be implemented in...




media.amtrak.com





Amtrak ConnectUS - More Trains, More Cities, Better Service (PDF)


----------



## jiml (May 27, 2021)

Interesting read - thanks for posting. Which HSR project does Amtrak have a joint-ticketing agreement with?


----------



## jis (May 27, 2021)

jiml said:


> Interesting read - thanks for posting. Which HSR project does Amtrak have a joint-ticketing agreement with?


The Texas one.


----------



## me_little_me (May 27, 2021)

Depends so much on what the infrastructure money gives Amtrak in the end. I noticed the minority party appears to have dropped the rail money to $46B (including money for the railroads) in their proposal. It all depends on what the next and future congresses for the years until 2035 allocate and that depends on who's in power.


----------



## leccy (May 27, 2021)

The eastern PA routes intrigue me. Basically commuter runs into Philly and/or New York. I can't help thinking that bridging the gap Harrisburg - Reading - Allentown is an obvious next step.


----------



## John Bredin (May 27, 2021)

Really interesting! Something for almost everyone, which I imagine is the point.

UP must have extracted a bad deal from Illinois on the Chicago-St. Louis line whereby more than the existing (pre-Covid) round-trips daily can't be added. No additional trains on that route stands out like a sore thumb amid all the proposed expansions. At least they think they'll get the trains to 110mph.


----------



## Cal (May 27, 2021)

33 round trips between SAN and LAX, I like the sound of that. A lot


----------



## Cal (May 27, 2021)

Does this mean that the Sunset would not be routed through Phoenix? Or just laziness on Amtrak's part


----------



## Bob Dylan (May 27, 2021)

Cal said:


> View attachment 22649
> 
> Does this mean that the Sunset would not be routed through Phoenix? Or just laziness on Amtrak's part


The old SP Route through Phoenix is in poor shape West of Phoenix and UP wants Big $$$$ to Upgrade the Line before allowing a return of Amtrak on this Route.
( same kind of deal that prevented a Daily CHI-LAX Texas Eagle)


----------



## Cal (May 27, 2021)

Bob Dylan said:


> The old SP Route through Phoenix is in poor shape West of Phoenix and UP wants Big $$$$ to Upgrade the Line before allowing a return of Amtrak on this Route.
> ( same kind of deal that prevented a Daily CHI-LAX Texas Eagle)


Yep. It states "Before proceeding, Amtrak will collaborate with various stakeholders to analyze restoration of the Union Pacific Phoenix West Line to resume access to Phoenix."

However on the map it still has the Sunset bypassing Phoenix. I'm assuming it's laziness from Amtrak's part and that the Sunset would be re-routed to go through Phoenix


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 27, 2021)

Seems like this vision will address the BOS/NYC - CLE issue. Would be great if they indeed ran LSL more like the Northeast Regional. If they could manage to improve travel times, something like that would really work, and maybe convince a stubborn state like Ohio that rail service isn't stupid.

Im surprised this report doesn't include the recent developments with the Downeaster. The state legislature recently just approved a feasibility study of extending the Downeaster all the way to Bangor.


----------



## Cal (May 27, 2021)

I don't think the current train sets for the Surfliner and Capitol can support 20 and 33 round trips each day respectively. Would they most likely be getting the same new cars that the Midwest is getting?


----------



## jis (May 28, 2021)

Cal said:


> I don't think the current train sets for the Surfliner and Capitol can support 20 and 33 round trips each day respectively. Would they most likely be getting the same new cars that the Midwest is getting?


They could get the new Alstom multi-levels a la METRA. That way the don’t have to make any changes to accommodate high floor cars at their stations.


----------



## Cal (May 28, 2021)

jis said:


> They could get the new Alstom multi-levels a la METRA. That way the don’t have to make any changes to accommodate high floor cars at their stations.


I did forget about those, that is a possibility. 

However most Midwest stations are low level, right? And so are the stations on the Cascades and along the San Joaquin route. I think it'd be better to simply get the Siemens cars to have standardization across the network. And the steps are available.


----------



## Steve4031 (May 28, 2021)

They are going to need at least 1 more rt on the Lincoln service. They need a 7 pm departure out of stl.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 28, 2021)

John Bredin said:


> Really interesting! Something for almost everyone, which I imagine is the point.
> 
> UP must have extracted a bad deal from Illinois on the Chicago-St. Louis line whereby more than the existing (pre-Covid) round-trips daily can't be added. No additional trains on that route stands out like a sore thumb amid all the proposed expansions. At least they think they'll get the trains to 110mph.


Noticed that as well. Also, the plan seems to assume that Phase 2 of the corridor and its promised speed improvements (Chicago-Joliet on the Metra-Rock Island, Springfield 10th Street and Flyover, and Granite City-St. Louis improvements) won't happen by 2035.

Most surprising to me is the plan for 8 round trips Chicago-Indy in 3:30, with 110 max speed. If Amtrak can make that happen, it could be a game changer. At less than 200 miles between Chicago and Indy, and the potential for Indy to serve as a second Midwest hub (to Cincy, Louisville, later Nashville, Atlanta, FLA, Columbus and the East), a successful deployment would scream out for high speed rail.

Also-

-The Illini/Saluki trimming over a half an hour off its runtime, the speeds would be similar in average speed to Phase 1 110mph CHI-STL and Amtrak's promised 110 mph CHI-IND service (62mph average speed for Illini/Saluki, 64mph average speed for full Phase 1 CHI-STL, 55mph average speed on CHI-IND 110mph)

-Detroit's Michigan Central Station will see passenger rail return, albeit for a single CHI-DET-TOR train. But it's a start.

-Interesting that Amtrak plans to "split the baby" as it were, sending new CHI-MSP round trips and the Empire Builder through LaCrosse, and additional CHI-MSP round trip(s) through Eau Claire. Seems like a lot of resources will have to go to pay for the improvements the Class Is will demand to both expand service on the LaCrosse route and start a new routing through Eau Claire, not to mention adding Madison into the mix.

-Chicago-Rockford run times are disappointing.

A lot can and will happen between now and 2035, and the plans can, and likely will, change, for better or worse.





-


----------



## neroden (May 28, 2021)

What can I say. It's a solid list (there are definitely quibbles but we know it won't be implemented exactly like this), and it's a good report. Hopefully it gets some traction. 

And if they start these services and don't publish timetables for them, they'll get significantly fewer customers than they're expecting. Amtrak needs some management sense in order to implement anything.


----------



## jiml (May 28, 2021)

MisterUptempo said:


> -Detroit's Michigan Central Station will see passenger rail return, albeit for a single CHI-DET-TOR train. But it's a start.


No one is holding their breath on this one. There was a lengthy discussion here awhile back on the logistical nightmare this could be - too many moving pieces and participants. Before even tackling the mess that is customs and immigration, there is no practical connection from the tunnel on the Canadian side to the tracks used by other passenger trains and no incentive to construct one. Amtrak paying for track construction in a "foreign" country would be difficult to justify. Improved schedule coordination with VIA and a Thruway bus would serve the same purpose.

If Chicago - Toronto service returns it would likely be an extension of the Blue Water, as in the more recent past. It's important to note, that train was killed by border crossing delays - a problem that doesn't go away with a crossing at Detroit.


----------



## neroden (May 28, 2021)

jiml said:


> No one is holding their breath on this one. There was a lengthy discussion here awhile back on the logistical nightmare this could be - too many moving pieces and participants. Before even tackling the mess that is customs and immigration, there is no practical connection from the tunnel on the Canadian side to the tracks used by other passenger trains and no incentive to construct one. Amtrak paying for track construction in a "foreign" country would be difficult to justify. Improved schedule coordination with VIA and a Thruway bus would serve the same purpose.
> 
> If Chicago - Toronto service returns it would likely be an extension of the Blue Water, as in the more recent past. It's important to note, that train was killed by border crossing delays - a problem that doesn't go away with a crossing at Detroit.


Perhaps another possiblity would be a VIA extension to Detroit, terminating at Central Terminal or stopping there for border checks. VIA continues to have less political support than Amtrak, which is pretty sad, but there are certainly a lot of Canadians who would like easy travel from Toronto to Detroit. This would of course require that the US engage in some reciprocality and allow Canadians to do precheck in the US rather than vice versa.


----------



## dlagrua (May 28, 2021)

The report is all about "corridors" and I do not doubt that there would be business there but IMO this would require Amtrak laying thousands of miles of their own tracks. With all these extra trains being added does anyone at Amtrak believe that the Freight Railroads would just move over and allow massive use of their track by passenger trains? I would say that they view Amtrak as a nuisance right now. I'd like to hear someone at Amtrak explain how this corridor system will be implemented. Opinions?


----------



## chrsjrcj (May 28, 2021)

IMO either Amtrak or the state DOTs should take ownership of these corridors. Add capacity and make infrastructure improvements to accommodate higher speed passenger trains.


----------



## neroden (May 28, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> The report is all about "corridors" and I do not doubt that there would be business there but IMO this would require Amtrak laying thousands of miles of their own tracks. With all these extra trains being added does anyone at Amtrak believe that the Freight Railroads would just move over and allow massive use of their track by passenger trains? I would say that they view Amtrak as a nuisance right now. I'd like to hear someone at Amtrak explain how this corridor system will be implemented. Opinions?



I think the grotesque incompetence of CSX will lead to freight shippers demanding nationalization of tracks. CSX has already proven that it's willing to sell -- with the huge sale to VA -- and is proving daily that it isn't really interested in operating a railroad for shippers. The obstacles are political and ideological.

There are no obstacles on, for instance, the New York City to Scranton route, which is already owned by public authorities and primarily needs construction money.

There's a huge amount of right of way and options for Detroit to Toledo and I have no doubt track can be acquired.

There's plenty of right-of-way from Albany to Chicago on the route of the Lake Shore Limited; someone just needs to buy it.

BNSF is being essentially cooperative with plans for new passenger trains. So is CP right now. UP, I can't read clearly. CSX wants to sell its tracks off. NS has been inclined to track sales in the past, though I'm not sure about now. CN seems to still be hostile, but really, I see options as long as outright purchase of ROW is taken seriously as an option, and funded, by the states and Amtrak. (CN sold most of its trackage in Toronto to the province.)


----------



## dlagrua (May 28, 2021)

Yes states buying lines could help. Not sure that I agree that nationalization of the railroads will occur but will agree that there are thousands of miles of abandoned R.O.W.'s that could be put back in use but I read it costs about $1 million/mile to lay track down, provide PTC, sidings etc. There are also some underutilized lines but they are mainly in rural areas. Amtrak has yet to produce an implementation plan so we will see how they intend to do it.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 28, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> The report is all about "corridors" and I do not doubt that there would be business there but IMO this would require Amtrak laying thousands of miles of their own tracks. With all these extra trains being added does anyone at Amtrak believe that the Freight Railroads would just move over and allow massive use of their track by passenger trains? I would say that they view Amtrak as a nuisance right now. I'd like to hear someone at Amtrak explain how this corridor system will be implemented. Opinions?


Someone above me already addressed this well.

I'll admit, I haven't studied enough, nor am I necessarily qualified to comment (but how many among us actually are), but I think they could also partner with state owned and commuter owned railroads to make this happen. We forget over the last 40 years, Amtrak/others have moved mountains to make things happen. A few examples (that now would seem like gargantuan, impossible tasks) would be electrifying New Haven-Boston, bringing passenger service to Maine, and Virginia buying tracks from the CSX. I wholeheartedly believe that many of these corridor plans could happen in the near future.
If commuter railroads and state-owned DOT's could make necessary improvements (electrification, double-track, PTC, etc...), that will also help alot.

I think the biggest obstacle is the mid-south projects like the Atlanta Hub, but maybe someone knows something about this that proves it easier than I think.

All of the stuff relating to LSL is absolutely possible, and simply hasn't been a priority. If heavily focused on, I think reasonable goals could bring about change in under a decade.


----------



## John Bredin (May 28, 2021)

1) Many of these corridors aren't "massive use" but 2-4 trains a day. With the exception of Chicago-Indianapolis and Boston-Concord, the corridors in this document more frequent than 4 trains a day are expansions of existing service.

2) Not every freight railroad treats Amtrak like a nuisance. CP seems to handle the Hiawathas and Empire Builder OK and to be supportive of expanding Hiawatha service. (The idiot NIMBYs in my area, on the other hand...). BNSF seems OK.

3) Amtrak or the relevant state DOTs have to be willing to make *reasonable* improvements (sidings, double-tracking, installing PTC where it’s required only because of passenger trains) commensurate with the capacity of the line and how many trains Amtrak wants relative to how many freights run now. Not to be held hostage to gold-plated demands but to come to the table with a firm but reasonable position. "We've come in good faith with capital money, and we're willing to negotiate somewhat, but we can always spend this money on another corridor if you start treating us as the goose that laid the golden egg."


----------



## jis (May 28, 2021)

neroden said:


> Perhaps another possiblity would be a VIA extension to Detroit, terminating at Central Terminal or stopping there for border checks. VIA continues to have less political support than Amtrak, which is pretty sad, but there are certainly a lot of Canadians who would like easy travel from Toronto to Detroit. This would of course require that the US engage in some reciprocality and allow Canadians to do precheck in the US rather than vice versa.


Just as a reminder, if VIA could easily get to the Detroit terminal from its Windsor station, then so could Amtrak. The problem is that there is no easy way to do so without significant investment and VIA would most likely have a relatively low priority to do so. Given their precarious position they have other bigger fish to fry with the meager funding that they get.

As @jiml says, if a Chicago Toronto service happens in the near future, it will be via Port Huron, not via Detroit. The capital investment needed to do it via Detroit is quite daunting at present.


----------



## moselman66 (May 28, 2021)

Finally got successfully enrolled after following this board for a long time....this topic just too fertile to pass up!

Getting CHI-IND down from about 5:00 to 3:35 is pretty amazing, and proposing _eight_ daily round trips to a route now with 3x/week is quite the jump. Many other new or expanded routes in this plan seem fairly doable with some upgrades to existing infrastructure. But how are they going to do CHI-IND in 3:35 -- lay 150 miles of new track? CHI-IND does seem a great corridor distance-wise for train travel, but 8/day is really ambitious, and 4x each to Cincinnati and Louisville is a serious frequency commitment. Maybe they knew the cost to get CHI-IND to respectable speeds would be really expensive, and so running 4x/each CHI-IND-CIN and CHI-IND-LVL was the way to spread those costs over a whole lot more traffic. I can only imagine the uphill battle for state support on this when Indiana dumped the 4x/week Hoosier funding not long ago, though spreading some costs to Ohio and Kentucky can help a little bit. Of course there's something to be said for "dream big" but this seems a serious reach .

If all this comes to pass the number of markets with multiple daily trains from Chicago will mushroom. Here's a comparison of notable Midwestern destinations with at least 2x/day (including lD) from Chicago in the (non-COVID) schedule. (These are of course not all unique train departures from CHI)

5 Bloomington 
3 Carbondale 
3 Champaign 
2 Cleveland 
3 Detroit 
4 Kalamazoo
7 Milwaukee
2 Quincy 
2 South Bend 
5 Springfield 
5 St Louis
2 Toledo 

Here's that same list (2x or more daily) if the proposed expansion is realized, including LD trips. Hopefully I didn't miss anything.

3 Appleton (new)
5 Bloomington (+0 but higher speeds)
3 Carbondale (+0 but higher speeds)
4 Champaign (+1)
4 Cincinnati (+3.6 and higher speeds)
2 Cleveland (+0)
6 Detroit (+3 and higher speeds)
2 Eau Claire (new)
2 Flint (+1)
3 Grand Rapids (+2)
3 Green Bay (new)
8 Indianapolis (+7.6 and higher speeds)
2 Iowa City (new)
8 Kalamazoo (+4)
2 Kansas City (+1 thru train via STL)
2 La Crosse (+1)
2 Lansing (+1)
4 Louisville (new)
4 Madison (new)
10 Milwaukee (+3)
4 Minneapolis/St Paul (+3)
3 Oshkosh
2 Quad Cities (new)
2 Quincy (+0)
2 Port Huron (+1)
2 Rockford (new)
2 South Bend (+0)
5 Springfield (+0 but higher speeds)
5 St Louis (+0 but higher speeds)
2 Toledo (+0)

Comparing those two lists is pretty jaw-dropping. Even those there is no true HSR and pretty limited higher-speed rail (HrSR, for the newbie?) something like this could still really be transformational to the perception and use of the rail network in the Midwest. Maybe moving it a lot closer to what it is in the Northeast as an everyday-viable sort of option to pop in people's minds. Currently it seems very niche-y and highly limited, and for the huge majority it doesn't even cross their minds as viable. 

It's a long way before even a substantial minority of this stuff happens, but it's still a moment for optimism.


----------



## jebr (May 28, 2021)

A map overlaying Amtrak's expansion proposals on the existing Amtrak network, courtesy of Yonah Freemark on Twitter.


----------



## Cal (May 28, 2021)

So is this what they think can be achieved within 15 years? Or if 15 years the soonest it can happen. Is there any timeline available?


----------



## jebr (May 28, 2021)

Cal said:


> So is this what they think can be achieved within 15 years? Or if 15 years the soonest it can happen. Is there any timeline available?



No specific timeline available, though if they get the funding they're requesting ($75b, I believe) along with some regulatory clarifications and updates it sounds like they believe they could get the proposed corridors running within 15 years.


----------



## jis (May 28, 2021)

Cal said:


> So is this what they think can be achieved within 15 years? Or if 15 years the soonest it can happen. Is there any timeline available?


There can be only aspirations to guide funding request. At this point no one can give a reliable time table, only aspiration timeline goals at best. Very little might happen at all if adequate funds do not get appropriated.


----------



## Cal (May 28, 2021)

jebr said:


> No specific timeline available, though if they get the funding they're requesting ($75b, I believe) along with some regulatory clarifications and updates it sounds like they believe they could get the proposed corridors running within 15 years.





jis said:


> There can be only aspirations to guide funding request. At this point no one can give a reliable time table, only aspiration timeline goals at best. Very little might happen at all if adequate funds do not get appropriated.


Thank you, as anyone here, I hope this happens.


----------



## IndyLions (May 28, 2021)

And I can’t help but think this plan will ultimately help LD. With more people riding trains and vastly more frequencies - the future demand and justification for LD trains will improve.

I also think that if this plan actually happens - there will be a strong desire by cities such as Nashville & Louisville to connect to each other and open up corridors to their citizens both north and south.

And even easier to justify would be second daily frequencies for LD trains in the east, as no additional infrastructure would be required.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 28, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> And I can’t help but think this plan will ultimately help LD. With more people riding trains and vastly more frequencies - the future demand and justification for LD trains will improve.
> 
> I also think that if this plan actually happens - there will be a strong desire by cities such as Nashville & Louisville to connect to each other and open up corridors to their citizens both north and south.
> 
> And even easier to justify would be second daily frequencies for LD trains in the east, as no additional infrastructure would be required.


I agree. I have been coming around to the idea that some of these obvious gaps in the proposed system might not be an oversight.

In addition to anticipating a desire to connect Nashville and Louisville grows organically from the residents of those two states, the same might be said of the notion that Columbus, while gaining much needed rail service, will only get 3Cs. If the route proves even marginally successful, Columbusites (yes, that's the proper term. I looked it up) might ask, "What about a connection to Pittsburgh, so we can connect to DC, Phila., and NYC? Could we get a connection westward, either at Indy or Ft. Wayne?"

Same could probably be said of the three new routes from the NEC into Eastern PA.


----------



## Willbridge (May 28, 2021)

Things could change but my observation has been that the BNSF treats the state improvements and proposed long distance routes in a businesslike manner and the UP thinks they are ridiculous. The BNSF is descended from companies that treated passengers with respect (Menk didn't have time enough to change the culture). The UP includes companies that were leaders in their antagonism toward passengers.

In the end things can be worked out with both companies, but as the _Pioneer _and _Sunset/Texas Eagle _studies showed we need to expect time to be wasted getting past the UP's political views and down to business.


----------



## JontyMort (May 28, 2021)

It’s surprising not to see any reference to higher speeds on the Chicago-Milwaukee section. Given the mainly flat and straight nature of the road, 110 or even 125 ought to be possible with some fettling. Electrification, anyone? The Milwaukee Road’s steamers regularly ran at 100+ (which admittedly is a terrifying thought).


----------



## Cal (May 28, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> It’s surprising not to see any reference to higher speeds on the Chicago-Milwaukee section. Given the mainly flat and straight nature of the road, 110 or even 125 ought to be possible with some fettling. Electrification, anyone? The Milwaukee Road’s steamers regularly ran at 100+ (which admitted is a terrifying thought).


I would also think they'd want to try to increase speeds on the Surfline which is relatively straight.


----------



## JontyMort (May 28, 2021)

Cal said:


> I would also think they'd want to try to increase speeds on the Surfline which is relatively straight.


Is it still the case that anything over 79 needs in-cab signalling?


----------



## Cal (May 28, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Is it still the case that anything over 79 needs in-cab signalling?


I have no idea, I'm just a foamer


----------



## Trogdor (May 29, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Is it still the case that anything over 79 needs in-cab signalling?



It’s not in-cab signaling, it’s some sort of automatic train stop system (in-cab signaling can help, but that’s not the actual requirement). In theory, positive train control which is now more-or-less universally required, should suffice. But then you also need a crap-ton of other stuff on the line itself (higher maintenance standards, adjustments to grade crossings and whatnot) to increase speeds as well.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 29, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> It’s surprising not to see any reference to higher speeds on the Chicago-Milwaukee section. Given the mainly flat and straight nature of the road, 110 or even 125 ought to be possible with some fettling. Electrification, anyone? The Milwaukee Road’s steamers regularly ran at 100+ (which admittedly is a terrifying thought).


Well, the train makes a number of stops, which reduces the time you can run a higher speeds. And 79 mph is faster than most drivers, so if they pay attention to clearing bottlenecks and keep station dwell time at a minimum, they can have end-to-end run times that are competitive with driving, and that's all they really need to do. Fixating on the maximum speed is sort of pointless testosterone posturing that costs a lot of money and doesn't always provide much benefit to the service. This is especially true for a relatively short run, like Chicago - Milwaukee. Electrification is a good goal for all of these corridors if you're interested in GHG emissions, as diesel trains emit a lot more than electric trains, and even buses (which are surprisingly low-emission per passenger mile.)


----------



## 9900 (May 29, 2021)

Looking over the proposed map….why not extend the proposed front range corridor from Pueblo down to La Junta?


----------



## jis (May 29, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Is it still the case that anything over 79 needs in-cab signalling?


Yes, but PTC includes what in effect is cab signaling as an integral part, and it is highly unusual for a passenger train to operate on a non PTC track that could otherwise support higher than 79mph speed. So the cab signaling thing is now a non issue, mostly. There are other issues like re-timing grade crossing gates, and actually maintaining the track for higher speed that come into play.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 29, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Seems like this vision will address the BOS/NYC - CLE issue. Would be great if they indeed ran LSL more like the Northeast Regional. If they could manage to improve travel times, something like that would really work, and maybe convince a stubborn state like Ohio that rail service isn't stupid.



They also have a Pennsylvanian (NYP/PHL/PGH - CLE train. They are also adding 3C and 3 Cleveland-Detroit trains. Noticeably absent is any increase in frequency of service between Chicago and Toledo/Cleveland. 

Adding Cleveland as a destination would help Pennsylvania and New York State passengers if 3C service and Detroit service is up and running but they still require connections. Adding three hours to the current westbound Pennsylvanian would put it in Cleveland around 11pm and make it virtually useless as a connection point. Let's say you have the Cleveland bound Pennsylvanian start three hours earlier than the 43 and get into CLE at 8pm. That's still too late to be practical if you wanted to go to Cincinnati, Columbus, or Detroit, and if you start any earlier than that it would be too early for New York. You could run this train as an overnight train leaving Philly right before midnight and arrive in Pittsburgh early in the morning and Cleveland around 10am ish. It hurts Harrisburg, Altoona, and Johnstown but someone will have to bite the bullet here. I don't see the point of expanding a train to Cleveland just for Cleveland. 

Of course you know my obvious solution


----------



## Deni (May 29, 2021)

I wish they'd extend the Quincy train to St. Louis, not even on a wish list outside of a small group in that region. That would have been awesome for weekend trips while I was at school in Macomb years ago.


----------



## thully (May 29, 2021)

Though nothing says that a Chicago-Detroit-Toronto train *has* to stop at the current VIA Windsor station. It seems like they could bypass that station and connect to the line used by VIA passenger trains further downline.



jis said:


> Just as a reminder, if VIA could easily get to the Detroit terminal from its Windsor station, then so could Amtrak. The problem is that there is no easy way to do so without significant investment and VIA would most likely have a relatively low priority to do so. Given their precarious position they have other bigger fish to fry with the meager funding that they get.
> 
> As @jiml says, if a Chicago Toronto service happens in the near future, it will be via Port Huron, not via Detroit. The capital investment needed to do it via Detroit is quite daunting at present.


----------



## jis (May 29, 2021)

thully said:


> Though nothing says that a Chicago-Detroit-Toronto train *has* to stop at the current VIA Windsor station. It seems like they could bypass that station and connect to the line used by VIA passenger trains further downline.


Sure, but why would VIA be interested in running a train that does not serve an important VIA station? While in our wet dreams this might happen, in reality it simply won't.


----------



## IndyLions (May 29, 2021)

The “cheapest” solution might be a second Windsor VIA station after the tunnel exit near the site of the (burned down) Windsor Michigan Central Station. That site is still clear.

Far from ideal, but maybe more practical than a slow trek from the current station to the tunnel through industrial yards.


----------



## jis (May 29, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> The “cheapest” solution might be a second Windsor VIA station after the tunnel exit near the site of the (burned down) Windsor Michigan Central Station. That site is still clear.
> 
> Far from ideal, but maybe more practical than a slow trek from the current station to the tunnel through industrial yards.


But what would cause VIA to want to divert scarce resources to such a project, and how would Amtrak fund such a project without some loud person in Congress getting upset about funding projects in Canada?


----------



## jiml (May 29, 2021)

thully said:


> Though nothing says that a Chicago-Detroit-Toronto train *has* to stop at the current VIA Windsor station. It seems like they could bypass that station and connect to the line used by VIA passenger trains further downline.



But who pays for that connection? The relevant lines currently cross at a diamond and it is not in the interest of either freight railroad to build a costly connection at that point. The other options, all exhausted on a thread last year, include 10mph through a sketchy storage yard or restoring trackage through a distillery parking lot and parkland - again with no financial incentive. If Amtrak wants to run a Chicago - Toronto train in tandem with VIA, it will go through Port Huron. If they want to go it alone, they would be wise to work out a deal with CP - not beyond the realm of possibility, but still unlikely in anything resembling the short term.


----------



## IndyLions (May 29, 2021)

Such obstacles! It’s a good thing they didn’t ask our generation to win World War II or land a man on the moon.

Heck, it was even too much for us when they asked us to sit on a couch for a year or wear a piece of cloth over our mouth and nose when we went out in public.


----------



## jiml (May 29, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> The “cheapest” solution might be a second Windsor VIA station after the tunnel exit near the site of the (burned down) Windsor Michigan Central Station. That site is still clear.
> 
> Far from ideal, but maybe more practical than a slow trek from the current station to the tunnel through industrial yards.


The "cheapest" solution from an Amtrak perspective would be running a sealed train all the way from Michigan Central to Toronto on CP, without any stops on the Canadian side. Amtrak and CP seem to have a good relationship and very little construction would be required.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 29, 2021)

Deni said:


> I wish they'd extend the Quincy train to St. Louis, not even on a wish list outside of a small group in that region. That would have been awesome for weekend trips while I was at school in Macomb years ago.


Extending the Illinois Zephyr/Carl Sandburg, first to Hannibal, then to St. Louis, was included in Missouri's state rail plan for years. Other future corridors envisioned by the state were St. Louis-Springfield, and KC-Springfield, KC-St. Joe-Omaha, as well as upgrading the River Runner to 110mph. 

But that's as far as it ever went.


----------



## JontyMort (May 29, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, the train makes a number of stops, which reduces the time you can run a higher speeds. And 79 mph is faster than most drivers, so if they pay attention to clearing bottlenecks and keep station dwell time at a minimum, they can have end-to-end run times that are competitive with driving, and that's all they really need to do. Fixating on the maximum speed is sort of pointless testosterone posturing that costs a lot of money and doesn't always provide much benefit to the service. This is especially true for a relatively short run, like Chicago - Milwaukee. Electrification is a good goal for all of these corridors if you're interested in GHG emissions, as diesel trains emit a lot more than electric trains, and even buses (which are surprisingly low-emission per passenger mile.)


Agreed about the short run, when viewing Milwaukee in isolation, but the proposal to make an effort to serve Madison and the Twin Cities enhances the case for improving the core section of the route - because more trains benefit. As to stops, that is another benefit of electrification, because the acceleration is noticeably better.

Still, I wouldn’t want to underestimate the potential difficulties.


----------



## jis (May 29, 2021)

Frankly, now that there is PTC available everywhere Amtrak should set a goal to upgrade all its routes to 100mph as is the case with almost all technologically advanced countries with credible rail systems on their standard or broad gauge classical networks. 

Heck, even India has set that as a goal for their major classical trunk routes. Of course, India does have the huge advantage of already having a mostly electrified railroad system, and its rolling stock is already capable. The issue there is upgradinng the permanent way, eliminating many grade crossings and installing fencing. Indian RDSO (Research Design and Standards Organization has decreed that any track carrying traffic above 90mph (or some such) through populated ares must be fenced preventing pedestrian access to the tracks.


----------



## west point (May 29, 2021)

Yes and India buys much more rolling stock every year than Amtrak has ever owned.


----------



## jis (May 29, 2021)

west point said:


> Yes and India buys much more rolling stock every year than Amtrak has ever owned.


Yeah IR bought a bit over 6,000 passenger cars in FY2019, the last full pre-pandemic FY. It also bought around a thousand locomotives in that period. Almost all of it is internally funded.


----------



## neroden (May 30, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> Things could change but my observation has been that the BNSF treats the state improvements and proposed long distance routes in a businesslike manner and the UP thinks they are ridiculous. The BNSF is descended from companies that treated passengers with respect (Menk didn't have time enough to change the culture). The UP includes companies that were leaders in their antagonism toward passengers.
> 
> In the end things can be worked out with both companies, but as the _Pioneer _and _Sunset/Texas Eagle _studies showed we need to expect time to be wasted getting past the UP's political views and down to business.


Meanwhile, CSX's culture doesn't even really want to carry freight, let alone passengers. It's all about financial manipulations to boost the stock price and the CEO's bonuses in the short term. Which means the best way to deal with CSX is to set up a financial deal where the states or Amtrak buy the tracks from them.

Frankly, CN seems about the same, and at this point, so does NS.


----------



## Burns651 (May 30, 2021)

jis said:


> As @jiml says, if a Chicago Toronto service happens in the near future, it will be via Port Huron, not via Detroit. The capital investment needed to do it via Detroit is quite daunting at present.



Then you'd better inform Amtrak that it has it all wrong. Amtrak indicates Detroit-Toronto through Windsor on its map, not Port Huron-Toronto.


----------



## jiml (May 30, 2021)

Burns651 said:


> Then you'd better inform Amtrak that it has it all wrong. Amtrak indicates Detroit-Toronto through Windsor on its map, not Port Huron-Toronto.


All that shows is that Amtrak's planners can dream too. The Ontario government has proposed the same thing. Several people here have studied this and even participated in focus groups on the subject. There are ways to make it happen, but it involves either "outside-the-box" thinking or money that neither national passenger carrier has available to spend - especially in another country.


----------



## Burns651 (May 30, 2021)

jiml said:


> ...involves either "outside-the-box" thinking or money that neither national passenger carrier has available to spend - especially in another country.



As of now, Amtrak doesn't have the money available to spend on ANY of its wish map trains, so we don't need to single out Detroit-Toronto as unfeasible. Who's to say Amtrak hasn't envisioned a sealed train from Dearborn to Toronto over CP?


----------



## jis (May 30, 2021)

jiml said:


> All that shows is that Amtrak's planners can dream too. The Ontario government has proposed the same thing. Several people here have studied this and even participated in focus groups on the subject. There are ways to make it happen, but it involves either "outside-the-box" thinking or money that neither national passenger carrier has available to spend - especially in another country.


Well put. So let us brainstorm a bit..As I see it, there are several possibilities:

1. Detroit/Dearborn to Toronto via CN on the VIA Windsor Toronto route operated as a VIA train in Canada similar to the Maple Leaf. This will involve some significant amount of capital work to get the train from the Detroit Tunnel to Windsor station, and will involve a backup move. Canadian C&I could happen at Windsor.

2. Detroit to Toronto via CP to Chatham and then CN/VIA route to Toronto. This could possibly be done quickly if a few agreements can be put in place. One is to figure out whether CP crew operates on CP or if they could allow VIA to operate it ex-Detroit, or even Amtrak to Chatham. There will be weird union and other issues involved, but if there is a will there should be a way feasible I suppose. In the former case a crew change could happen at Chatham and it could operate as a VIA train ex Chatham Canadian C&I happens in Detroit. Amtrak would just have to fund Windsor (CP) to Chatham operation in Canada and all the Canadian ridership except Windsor would still be captured.

3. Sealed operation Detroit to Toronto. Serves the fewest customers and involves the largest amount of US funding in Canada. Canadian C&I would probably still be in Detroit.

4. via Port Huron - not ideal since it misses the huge Detroit market, but can be instituted almost instantaneously using the template of the past operation of The International. Canadian C&I at Sarnia, US at Port Huron. For reason mentioned by @Burns651 this would be unlikely.

5. Just for completeness - Detroit - Toledo - Cleveland - Buffalo - Niagara Falls - Toronto - significantly longer running time. Adds tremendous number of city pairs providing direct connectivity to Toronto from several Ohio and upstate New York areas. Easy to do, but less likely IMHO.

Of these (@jiml correct me if I am wrong), #2 in balance probably has the best cost/benefit ratio overall with most benefits to most potential customers, if the operating agreements can be worked out. The Canadians may be less than happy for missing Windsor, so some compensation may have to be worked out for that. Maybe this can be piggybacked into a Windsor Toronto service just patching this train onto the rear of a Windsor Toronto service. Afterall Canadians are know to do such thing with the Montreal to Fallowfield/Toronto joint train that splits into two en route.

Did I miss any?

Incidentally Amtrak ballpark estimates of capital cost is around $30M to $40M and annual operating cost ballpark is $3.75M, with annual new ridership of 100K to 200K according to their document. This suggests they may be contemplating the #1 rather than the #2, unless they are including the cost of the two train sets too, in which case I am not sure, maybe #2 which has low capital cost for infrastructure or even #3.


----------



## jiml (May 30, 2021)

jis said:


> Well put. So let us brainstorm a bit..As I see it, there are several possibilities:
> 
> 1. Detroit/Dearborn to Toronto via CN on the VIA Windsor Toronto route operated as a VIA train in Canada similar to the Maple Leaf. This will involve some significant amount of capital work to get the train from the Detroit Tunnel to Windsor station, and will involve a backup move. Canadian C&I could happen at Windsor.
> 
> ...


That's a very succinct summary. I had worried about hijacking this thread with too much information, however if there continues to be interest there's a lot more information that could be added. I participated in a study in 2018 that continues to yield data points on this subject.


----------



## jis (May 30, 2021)

I think starting a detailed discussion on any route here should be OK. If it gets lengthy then we can lean on @pennyk or @jebr to spin the thing off into a thread of its own.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (May 30, 2021)

America's Amtrak moment could finally be here


Fifty years after the first Amtrak train left the station on the creaking remains of America's nation-building rail network, the country's neglected rail service could at last be on track to move into the modern era as President Joe Biden seeks to inject a massive dose of funding to revitalize...




www.cnn.com


----------



## sttom (May 30, 2021)

I personally see this plan as incredibly underwhelming. There are a lot of other routes that should be on the map that aren’t (Oklahoma City to Tulsa being one of the biggest misses), the planned frequencies are pretty crap on most of the routes and this comes off as an NEC bailout with some line tacked on for the rest of us to get it through the senate. Doing the math, with $50 billion going to the Northeast, if the rest of us got the same money per capita, we’d be getting $469 billion. The 2035 plan might have been good in 2010 if it was supposed to finished by now, but as a 15 year plan it’s complete crap. I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.


----------



## west point (May 30, 2021)

I still do not the like the idea of going Windsor = Toronto. However going from Detroit = Toledo = Buffalo= Niagara =Toronto serves 2 purposes. Provides another service Detroit = Buffalo with connections on east . Saves the delays possible with instituting another customs screw up location. Niagara would get to be more customs efficient.


----------



## IndyLions (May 31, 2021)

sttom said:


> I personally see this plan as incredibly underwhelming. There are a lot of other routes that should be on the map that aren’t (Oklahoma City to Tulsa being one of the biggest misses), the planned frequencies are pretty crap on most of the routes and this comes off as an NEC bailout with some line tacked on for the rest of us to get it through the senate. Doing the math, with $50 billion going to the Northeast, if the rest of us got the same money per capita, we’d be getting $469 billion. The 2035 plan might have been good in 2010 if it was supposed to finished by now, but as a 15 year plan it’s complete crap. I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.



I’m no Amtrak apologist, but I think this classifies as a good start. Underwhelming - ok. Calling it “crap” sounds like hyperbole or sour grapes. Going from 0 to 3 or 4 daily round trips in a bunch of new corridors over 15 years is more than all the progress combined of the last 50 years.

Your example of the WI road is definitely apples and oranges. While I guess it qualifies as impressive - it’s not like dozens of train sets had to be constructed out of thin air in 9 months before it could go into service.

And while Biden is a big supporter, a more exotic first step would draw a Republican reaction of ridicule and opposition analogous to the Democrats’ reaction to Trump’s wall.

My wish? That Biden would announce the immediate government acquisition of all railroad infrastructure. How do you think that would go?


----------



## IndyLions (May 31, 2021)

jis said:


> 2. Detroit to Toronto via CP to Chatham and then CN/VIA route to Toronto. This could possibly be done quickly if a few agreements can be put in place. One is to figure out whether CP crew operates on CP or if they could allow VIA to operate it ex-Detroit, or even Amtrak to Chatham. There will be weird union and other issues involved, but if there is a will there should be a way feasible I suppose. In the former case a crew change could happen at Chatham and it could operate as a VIA train ex Chatham Canadian C&I happens in Detroit. Amtrak would just have to fund Windsor (CP) to Chatham operation in Canada and all the Canadian ridership except Windsor would still be captured.


I still think the equivalent of a suburban platform with a modest number of parking spaces could be built in Windsor at (or near) the site of the old Windsor station.

There could even be an airport-like shuttle service between the new VIA station to the platform if they can’t afford a parking lot. It’s only a couple of miles.

Lots of medium sized cities have multiple stations (Buffalo, Richmond, etc) and I’m only talking about a suburban platform.


----------



## neroden (May 31, 2021)

jis said:


> Well put. So let us brainstorm a bit..As I see it, there are several possibilities:
> 
> 1. Detroit/Dearborn to Toronto via CN on the VIA Windsor Toronto route operated as a VIA train in Canada similar to the Maple Leaf. This will involve some significant amount of capital work to get the train from the Detroit Tunnel to Windsor station, and will involve a backup move. Canadian C&I could happen at Windsor.
> 
> ...



#2 is the one I was thinking of, at least for initial service. I figure people who live in Windsor and aren't right next to the station are perfectly likely to consider driving to the Detroit station just as reasonable as driving to the Windsor station, so skipping Windsor station mainly loses the benefit of having another Windsor-Toronto frequency. If the train actually splits into a "Windsor section" and a "Detroit Section", then even that isn't an issue. Customs at Detroit, and then passengers to Chicago continue on an Amtrak train... of course that means some Amtrak trains from Chicago go to Detroit New Center and some to Detroit Michigan Central, but they were already planning that.

I suspect Amtrak is including the cost of trainsets in its capital estimates, since that has become standard practice in transit planning in the US for whatever reason, and it's how they estimated Rockford, Dubuque, Moline, and Iowa City service.

Of course in the slightly longer run the Windsor station could be moved onto the CP route; there is room, and there's even room for a pair of VIA-exclusive tracks in that massive ROW.


----------



## dlagrua (May 31, 2021)

leccy said:


> The eastern PA routes intrigue me. Basically commuter runs into Philly and/or New York. I can't help thinking that bridging the gap Harrisburg - Reading - Allentown is an obvious next step.


I believe those cities will get better service but the question is will the state of PA put their money behind Amtrak or SEPTA for new routes? PA runs several commuter routes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. As for PHL I can see Amtrak adding another Harrisburg -Philadelphia train but Allentown and Reading might be more attractive for the state to put their money into SEPTA.


----------



## jiml (May 31, 2021)

There really could be a small book or at least a series of articles written about Detroit - Toronto service. Disregarding trains like the Amtrak International, which as mentioned used a different route for all of its existence, there is a long history of trains crossing between Windsor and Detroit - including other Amtrak trains in its early days. It sounds like a natural market and a great fit for restored/new service - until it isn't. Here's some background which I hope is at least informative:

Windsor and Detroit are about 40 minutes by air from Toronto with frequent, if overpriced, service. (Yes Windsor actually has an airport with significant service despite its proximity to DTW. There was a plan to actually cede their ATC to Detroit, but that proved very political for the federal government and was withdrawn in April.) There is also a major interstate-style highway (401) between Windsor and Toronto - a major trucking route that actually carries US I-75 branding near Windsor. There are few major cities on the route, with the westernmost (closest to Windsor) being London - a major university city with some industry. CN (and VIA) have two routes between Toronto and London - the more southerly is a fairly straight line used by the majority of CN freight and most of VIA's passenger trains. Once outside the GTA (Greater Toronto Area) it does not have a major passenger-generating stop until London, but is well-maintained and faster than the northern route. The northern route between Toronto and London hits a number of of major centers, but is significantly more circuitous and hosts only a couple of VIA trains - usually continuing to Sarnia, ON. (It always seemed like a curious choice for the International, but that's another chapter.) West of London, CN's tracks fork with the heavy double-tracked main heading north to their tunnel under the St. Clair River at Sarnia to Port Huron, MI. The main customer on the mostly single southern track to Windsor is VIA Rail. Having traversed this part of the route many times, it is not a fast trip. CP has its own tracks between Toronto and Windsor that host passenger service (GO) as far west as Milton, ON, with plans to extend to Cambridge - the site of a major Toyota plant. Beyond that CP is freight-only.

In 2017 the Government of Ontario announced with great fanfare the establishment of a High Speed rail link between Toronto and Windsor. While the proposal had a lot of people scratching their heads and a price tag in the stratosphere, it did address two problems which I alluded to above - connecting the major centers (including a developing high-tech corridor) on the north route between Toronto and London that had infrequent and slower VIA service and the route between London and Windsor, which had decent VIA service slowed by a lack of TLC by CN. I won't detail the whole proposal here, but here's a link for those interested: High speed rail. The included map may be especially useful in understanding the connections. That government was defeated in the 2018 election, being replaced by one from the opposite end of the political spectrum. However, despite the suggestion of more fiscal responsibility, the new government preserved the plan with several changes. Most notably high-speed electric was downgraded to "higher speed" diesel, the route was extended to Detroit and CP joined the discussion as a participant. The newly-created transit oversight agency Metrolinx also became involved. (They are the "parent" of heavy rail GO services, as well as other regional transit services.) Due to some prior involvement with the Ministry of Transportation, I was invited to participate in a study which consisted of a tea-and-cookies presentation, reading through a detailed booklet and completing a 20+ page questionnaire. (That is why I have some limited knowledge of the proposal.) Of course the pandemic came along and other than a generic (and infrequent) newsletter I have no idea what is happening. It may be dead, since all levels of government that had an interest have depleted finances due to Covid.

Southwestern Ontario has always been the poor stepchild of VIA's Ontario/Quebec corridor. There likely isn't a pressing need to increase service in the foreseeable future. Whether they'd like to get rid of the route I don't know, but there are some similarities between it and Toronto - Niagara Falls for example. The latter saw less and less service until the joint Maple Leaf was the only remaining train. If there had been a market for more service VIA certainly could have continued with at least one train that offset the Maple Leaf in the opposite direction. Such a service did exist, but a number of factors that have been covered elsewhere led to its discontinuance. GO had seen an opportunity pre-Covid and had expanded service on the route significantly, so even when the Maple Leaf was suspended (first for bridge repairs, then the pandemic) there was a way to get to Niagara from Toronto. As has been discussed previously, GO had long-term plans to actually cross the bridge to connect with up to 3 Amtrak trains daily - ideally across the platform (required track work). The new Niagara Falls, NY, station was even built with provision for Canadian authorities to do pre-screening and the Ontario government had sought to purchase the entire route from CN. All pre-Covid of course.

Back to the Toronto - Windsor route, there have been some recent positive developments. The north route between Toronto and London has seen financial investment by the province, as it is a key route for GO expansion and all-day service - including the first electrified test section of the GO network. The CP line out of Toronto has also seen a lot of attention, including double track, increased passenger frequencies and planned expansion. Without these investments neither would really have been a desirable route for long-distance, but for various reasons both have improved potential.

In conclusion, a partnership between Amtrak and the Ontario Government is a possibility not mentioned in @jis' comprehensive list, and it could work with more than one of his suggestions. If VIA is a participant that's great too, but I sense there might be room for both serving different markets. Maybe the Amtrak service doesn't have to serve Windsor at all or a platform on the CP route with a connecting shuttle would work. There would always be an option for connections at Chatham or London. Only time will tell.


----------



## jebr (May 31, 2021)

sttom said:


> I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.



Is it this project? Because, if so, I'm not sure that's the best model to use. I'd prefer to have something that's sustainable and will be here for the long haul, rather than throwing money places and hoping things work out okay in the end.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 31, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> I believe those cities will get better service but the question is will the state of PA put their money behind Amtrak or SEPTA for new routes? PA runs several commuter routes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. As for PHL I can see Amtrak adding another Harrisburg -Philadelphia train but Allentown and Reading might be more attractive for the state to put their money into SEPTA.


I thought that the reason SEPTA dropped the Philadelphia - Reading and Philadelphia- Bethlehem service in the early 1980s was that they had just completed the Center City tunnel connecting the old PRR and Reading lines. In the tunnel, of course, you can't run diesel equipment, therefore SEPTA now had no interest in running diesel powered trains. Philadelphia to Reading and Philadelphia to Allentown/Bethlehem involves running over the old Reading lines, and I'm not sure there are any convenient connections between 30th St. Station and the former Reading lines that don't involve the Center City tunnel. The PRR used to run a commuter train to Manayunk, where an interchange could be made, but the line beyond Cynwyd has been abandoned since the 1980s.

If SEPTA was going to run this service, they'd have to operate over a host railroad (Norfolk Southern Harrisburg line), which is something I don't think SEPTA has any experience with. (I'm not sure about who owns the tracks between Lansdale and Bethlehem.) They'd also have to get Dual mode locomotives so they could run under the wire to Norristown or Lansdale and then diesel up to Reading and Bethlehem. I'm not sure whether this is something that would interest SEPTA, so I think that it's more likely that this is a job for Amtrak. They would have to figure out some way to interchange diesel-operated trains from the NEC to the old Reading lines, or maybe with Tier IV engines, diesels could actually operate in the tunnel.


----------



## MisterUptempo (May 31, 2021)

jebr said:


> Is it this project? Because, if so, I'm not sure that's the best model to use. I'd prefer to have something that's sustainable and will be here for the long haul, rather than throwing money places and hoping things work out okay in the end.


That's the one. Only goes to show how quickly things can go awry when a hard core BS artist (Wisconsin's Walker) does business with a world class BS artist (Foxconn's Gou).

On the bright side, just think of all the Wisconsinites who won't be leaping from windows out of desperation while in Foxconn's employ.


----------



## railiner (May 31, 2021)

Amtrak won't even run the Maple Leaf 'closed doors' Buffalo to Toronto, without the participation of VIA (or maybe GO) beyond the border, so I strongly doubt they would ever consider running their own train all the way from Detroit or Port Huron to Toronto, without VIA's participation...


----------



## railiner (May 31, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> PA runs several commuter routes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh


All commuter trains serving Pittsburgh's three terminals ended decades ago...


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2021)

dlagrua said:


> I believe those cities will get better service but the question is will the state of PA put their money behind Amtrak or SEPTA for new routes? PA runs several commuter routes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. As for PHL I can see Amtrak adding another Harrisburg -Philadelphia train but Allentown and Reading might be more attractive for the state to put their money into SEPTA.


Pittsburgh has not had any commuter service for many decades now.

Any Philadlephi - Harrisburg additional frequency will have to be funded by PA, as will proposed new service to Reading. Allentown is proposed from New York anyway, not from Philadelphia. Amtrak might have to struggle to figure out how to get funding out of NJ for that since it runs mostly in NJ Allentown and Scranton both will face similar issues for ongoing operating funding after the federal seed time is over.


----------



## jiml (Jun 1, 2021)

railiner said:


> Amtrak won't even run the Maple Leaf 'closed doors' Buffalo to Toronto, without the participation of VIA (or maybe GO) beyond the border, so I strongly doubt they would ever consider running their own train all the way from Detroit or Port Huron to Toronto, without VIA's participation...


The Maple Leaf makes stops _because_ it is a VIA train and their only service on that route. I'd suggest Amtrak would be delighted if passengers could easily transfer to another service at Niagara Falls for intermediate stops and the Maple Leaf ran non-stop to Toronto (or not into Canada at all). From the timekeeping perspective alone, this would benefit Amtrak. After C&I issues, the number one complaint about the International was it was a milk run, hitting every Podunk little town in Southwestern Ontario. I doubt there was ever much traffic between points in the US and Wyoming (ON), Strathroy and St. Mary's. The problem was it slotted in place of a VIA Sarnia - Toronto milk run.


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2021)

The issue frankly boils down to how acceptable it will be for an American outfit to fund extended operation of a train in Canada. 

We know that NY State chooses to fund operation fo the Adirondack to Montreal, but that is a relatively short run to th convenient terminus to turn the train, for which there is really no good turning point within the US on its route.

Runningall the way from Michigan border to Toronto is a completely different kettle of fish. Would Michigan be willing to fund it? Even new York does not wish to fund the Maple Leaf in Canada, and Niagara Falls to Toronto is a much shorter distance. Frankly I do not see an American entity funded non stop Michigan border to Toronto train coming to pass, and that implicitly leads to some sort of VIA participation and funding. Indeed Amtrak's document mentions VIA as a partner in that train's description.


----------



## jiml (Jun 1, 2021)

jis said:


> Indeed Amtrak's document mentions VIA as a partner in that train's description.


Along with a few other interesting "potential hosts".


----------



## jis (Jun 1, 2021)

jiml said:


> Along with a few other interesting "potential hosts".


I suspect that not too many of the hosts are capable of providing OBS like VIA is though. Of course given the Amtrak of today, they may not have any qualms of saying we'll have CP and CN run the train but no OBS.


----------



## railiner (Jun 1, 2021)

jis said:


> The issue frankly boils down to how acceptable it will be for an American outfit to fund extended operation of a train in Canada.
> 
> We know that NY State chooses to fund operation fo the Adirondack to Montreal, but that is a relatively short run to th convenient terminus to turn the train, for which there is really no good turning point within the US on its route.
> 
> Runningall the way from Michigan border to Toronto is a completely different kettle of fish. Would Michigan be willing to fund it? Even new York does not wish to fund the Maple Leaf in Canada, and Niagara Falls to Toronto is a much shorter distance. Frankly I do not see an American entity funded non stop Michigan border to Toronto train coming to pass, and that implicitly leads to some sort of VIA participation and funding. Indeed Amtrak's document mentions VIA as a partner in that train's description.


Exactly. The only time Amtrak funded a train across Canada, was the Niagara Rainbow, between Buffalo and Detroit. In that case, they even carried locally a few stops within Ontario, since there was no other service on that route. The same for the VIA trains that crossed parts of the US, like the Atlantic Limited which carried within Maine, and the Thunder Bay to Winnipeg train across Minnesota...


----------



## jiml (Jun 1, 2021)

At one time there were three railroads serving Windsor through to Detroit. The oft-quoted 1952 Guide has several trains each from CN, CP and CSO (New York Central) - the original owner of the Detroit River tunnel. The current enlarged version has two parallel bores, so should be able to accommodate a couple of daily passenger trains no problem. The newer CN one is a single.



railiner said:


> The only time Amtrak funded a train across Canada, was the Niagara Rainbow, between Buffalo and Detroit. In that case, they even carried locally a few stops within Ontario, since there was no other service on that route.



The frequently-discussed and partly abandoned Canso sub. 



railiner said:


> The same for the VIA trains that crossed parts of the US, like the Atlantic Limited which carried within Maine, and the Thunder Bay to Winnipeg train across Minnesota...



Back in the day when the two countries actually liked each other. There's a fairly recent video on YouTube regarding the continuing freight traffic on the TB - Winnipeg route and just how informal the formalities are. Nothing to do with Amtrak, but Northwestern Ontario remains a priority for restored passenger service.


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 1, 2021)

9900 said:


> Looking over the proposed map….why not extend the proposed front range corridor from Pueblo down to La Junta?


It's under study the other way -- routing the SWC via Pueblo or running a Colorado Springs section of the SWC from Chicago.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 2, 2021)

Does anyone here actually believe this will all come to fruition? I don't, given the circus that's currently going on with the proposed Gulf Coast service that everyone ballyhooed a few years ago when Amtrak ran a train all the way over to Jacksonville. Ohio? DOA in my estimation. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm not hopeful for a lot of routes that show on the map. Meanwhile, the Front Range is not connected to Amtrak's transcon route. Go figure.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 2, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Meanwhile, the Front Range is not connected to Amtrak's transcon route. Go figure.


What, the California Zephyr is no longer a "transcon Route?"


----------



## jis (Jun 2, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> What, the California Zephyr is no longer a "transcon Route?"


Interestingly, since Amtrak Day the CZ and before that the SFZ have never faced outright cancellation AFAIR. It has been down to thrice a week, specially west of Denver or SLC a few times, but never outright cancellation threat.

OTOH the SWC and before that the SWL went through several rounds of threats of outright cancellation, or more recently, destruction through segmentation.

So one could argue that it is the CZ which is the more stable transcon route.


----------



## jimdex (Jun 2, 2021)

jis said:


> Runningall the way from Michigan border to Toronto is a completely different kettle of fish. Would Michigan be willing to fund it?


I think the assumption here is that the Canadian portion of this route would basically be one of VIA's existing Windsor-Toronto runs. So it might be that the only extra cost would be the link between Detroit and Windsor.


----------



## jimdex (Jun 2, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Does anyone here actually believe this will all come to fruition? I don't, given the circus that's currently going on with the proposed Gulf Coast service that everyone ballyhooed a few years ago when Amtrak ran a train all the way over to Jacksonville. Ohio?


It's certainly a longshot. It's possible _ suppose _that some of these lines will come to fruition one way or another.


----------



## jis (Jun 2, 2021)

jimdex said:


> I think the assumption here is that the Canadian portion of this route would basically be one of VIA's existing Windsor-Toronto runs. So it might be that the only extra cost would be the link between Detroit and Windsor.


As I said, there are two possibilities:

1. Simply figure out and do the capital investment to get the train from Detroit to Windsor, and then it becomes a VIA train. This involves some time and a significant amount of capital funding in Canada, so some source of Canadian funding has to be found. Given the gymnastics it has taken tog et Canadian funding for the Customs and Immigration facility at Montreal Central station, it would appear to be a significant challenge to get there.

2. Figure out a way to get the train from Detroit to Chatham on CP which takes no capital investment, only an operational arrangement. At Chatham let it become a VIA train either self standing or by simply hitching onto the rear of a Windsor - Toronto train. This miht be easier to achieve if an agreement can be struck with CP for conveyance of the train Chatham and then for VIA to take it over there.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 2, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> What, the California Zephyr is no longer a "transcon Route?"



Let me be clearer. There is an obvious gap on the map between Pueblo and La Junta.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 2, 2021)

sttom said:


> I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.


The President has shown he's supportive but with a 50/50 Senate the vast majority of potential legislation will be locked into a perpetual stalemate. This will likely change in 2022 when more aggressive gerrymandering will flip Congress.


----------



## chrsjrcj (Jun 2, 2021)

Even if Amtrak gets the money, they still have to work with state DOTs. I could see it working out with existing partners plus Colorado, but hard to believe it will happen elsewhere.


----------



## jis (Jun 2, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Let me clearer. There is an obvious gap on the map between Pueblo and La Junta.


There is a plan afoot to reroute the Transcon via Pueblo pushed by the same Colorado Front Range folks too. If that comes to pass then a connection between the two would become feasible. In any case, this map is not anywhere near the last word only any of these routes and their final structure, or even end points. It is one that is drawn purely by projecting the main urban population centers onto the current route map. The method used to arrive at it is explained quite completely in the more detailed document that goes with it.


----------



## jiml (Jun 2, 2021)

jis said:


> 2. Figure out a way to get the train from Detroit to Chatham on CP which takes no capital investment, only an operational arrangement. At Chatham let it become a VIA train either self standing or by simply hitching onto the rear of a Windsor - Toronto train. This miht be easier to achieve if an agreement can be struck with CP for conveyance of the train Chatham and then for VIA to take it over there.


While I think this makes total sense, the "Achilles' heel" of joining two trains eastbound at Chatham (or London) will be timekeeping. Key to this would be Canadian Customs pre-clearance in Detroit before departure - something that to-date has not happened despite opportunities to implement it elsewhere. With the duration of a C&I inspection performed enroute in Canada being both variable and unknown, the chances of both trains arriving at the connection point within minutes of each other are not good. A border delay could have VIA waiting for Amtrak (good luck with that), whereas a light Amtrak load could have the Detroit train there first and out-of-position for a tow to Toronto. (Chatham is now single-track, which is why London may make more sense.)


Edit to add Chatham pic.


----------



## jiml (Jun 2, 2021)

Further to the "connect VIA Windsor to Detroit" discussion, here are the obstacles and data points:
- VIA runs to Windsor on CN tracks to Walkerville - a couple of miles northeast of CP's tunnel to Detroit. Tracks past the station are partly abandoned or pulled up and replaced with parkland along the Detroit River. (The ROW can be seen on Google Maps.) Even if this route was rehabilitated, a large loop or turning track would be required to reach CP's tunnel slope - about 3 blocks from the river in a residential area. 
- CN passenger trains did share this tunnel with CP and NY Central (CSO) before VIA, however they exited before the present Windsor station on connecting tracks to a joint yard complex in central Windsor, then on CP through the tunnel. These tracks are now mostly overgrown and used to store parts cars for the nearby Ford plant. 
- The Amtrak Niagara Rainbow used the southerly Canso subdivision before joining CP for a stop at their station just prior to the tunnel on the Canadian side. As others have mentioned, this station is gone.

Since all the above need funding to resolve and there is little motivation to find it, that makes @jis' alternative the most viable solution if Amtrak and VIA partner on this route.


----------



## John Bredin (Jun 2, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Does anyone here actually believe this will all come to fruition? I don't, given the circus that's currently going on with the proposed Gulf Coast service that everyone ballyhooed a few years ago when Amtrak ran a train all the way over to Jacksonville. Ohio? DOA in my estimation. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm not hopeful for a lot of routes that show on the map. Meanwhile, the Front Range is not connected to Amtrak's transcon route. Go figure.


All of them? I would be pleasantly surprised. But I do expect some of them to happen, and not just the ones cribbed from state plans in states that actually fund passenger rail (California, Illinois, etc.).

To me, the biggest obstacle is Congress possibly not funding this. While Biden and Buttigieg are vocally pro-Amtrak and Biden has submitted a robust infrastructure bill, Republican leaders in Congress are looking for things to whittle down in that bill. Amtrak should be considered "traditional" infrastructure, but it's certainly not unheard of for GOP pols to think believe that billions for highways is fine but millions for Amtrak is a waste, and opposing Amtrak funding because Biden wants it seems par for the vindictive course of the GOP in the last few years.

On the other hand, this plan seems custom-designed to bring new or improved service to red and purple states. Amtrak seems genuinely worried that it has frequent service in some regions (NEC, California) and little to none in other regions that are up-and-coming population-wise (Southeast, Southwest). But another way of seeing that is blue states having lots of service now and Amtrak planning to expand into red and purple areas. Being able to point to a plan and map that shows increased service in Georgia, or Alabama, or Arizona makes it easier for a Congressman from that state to vote for Amtrak funding.

As to Amtrak's willingness to implement this plan, it's Amtrak's baby, nobody made them do it. As I said above, Amtrak leadership seems worried about being increasingly irrelevant in regions that are increasingly relevant. Except where it cribs from existing state plans to have already-frequent service become even more frequent, this plan seems designed for breadth of service rather than depth, to have Amtrak be a practical option for more people in more places not presently served by Amtrak rather than high frequencies in a couple of new regions.

While I would l like more long-distance service as well as more corridor service, I think the plan's focus on corridors makes sense if the goal is to get more people who aren't riding Amtrak now to ride. If I'm in Atlanta and I've never ridden Amtrak before, it's a lot easier to get me to board a train for a few hours to Macon, Savannah, Montgomery, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Nashville, Greenville or Charlotte, especially when I have a choice of two or three round-trips, than to get me to take a hypothetical LD train to Chicago. Or if I'm in Denver it's easier to get me to take a train to Colorado Springs or Cheyenne than an LD train to Chicago or the Bay Area. If it's a trip I would otherwise drive, then being able to plink away on my phone, tablet, or laptop, or to drink alcohol, might tip me towards taking the train for roughly the same time if not faster. By contrast, taking an LD train for a day or more when I could fly sounds like a waste of time to a lot of people who don't get lots of time off and would rather spend precious time at their destination rather than traveling. Which isn't to say that some people wouldn't take the LD train, especially if it leaves one's community in the evening and arrives at one's destination in the morning, but corridors are a safer bet to get the most people's butts into Amtrak seats.

Also, nothing in this plan is contrary to more LD trains later on. At the least, many of the new services expressly presume that an existing LD train will be one of the frequencies, so it isn't anti-LD. Moreover, once you have service Denver-Pueblo, or Chicago-Louisville, or Atlanta-Nashville, the pressure or demand to fill the obvious gaps in the map will grow. And a person who travels by corridor, for whom Amtrak is a known quantity, is more likely to consider Amtrak for a longer trip than someone taking more of a leap into the unknown or unfamiliar. I note regarding gaps in the map that Amtrak is planning to fill a prominent one by connecting Fort Worth and Oklahoma City to the Southwest Chief at Newton, also bringing service to Wichita. Just because it's planning to do it with a corridor train rather than an LD train doesn't mean it wouldn't count.

As to uncooperative states, the no-money-for-the first-couple-years thing seems designed to get around that as much as humanly possible, as I have posted previously. Get service going, a useful service with at least two round-trips so a day trip can be made in either direction. Then hopefully the people who ride the train, the colleges and universities glad to have more car-free students not clogging the campus  and the chambers of commerce and tourism boards in the towns with additional tourism because of the connection to other cities will pressure their legislators to keep the service going. It is, of course, possible that some particularly ideological state legislators will still oppose funding under such circumstances, but IMHO it's significantly harder to "kill" an existing service, especially one that directly serves your district, than to "abort" one that doesn't exist. (See Wisconsin, where Scott Walker was able to block Madison service from starting but kept reassuring business leaders that he had no intention to end or reduce the existing Chicago-Milwaukee service.)

As to the practicalities of working with freight railroads, going for a bunch of 2-4 train corridors rather than a couple of really frequent ones also makes a lot of sense. If a freight railroad is particularly intransigent or greedy, Amtrak isn't overly attached to getting any one corridor running. It can walk away and spend its money where the spending is easier, with more cooperative freight companies and/or on corridors with significant publicly-owned trackage. (The same is true for particularly uncooperative states, actually.) Also, while most freight railroads would rightfully balk at new hourly service without significant public capital funding, if your freight line can't handle 2-4 more round trips a day even with a modest capital investment, maybe Amtrak ain't the problem. 

In short, I am cautiously but firmly optimistic about this plan, precisely because Amtrak is being practical and planning to put a lot of medium to large eggs in a lot of different baskets rather than putting one or two ostrich eggs in one or two laundry baskets that can be easily upset.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 2, 2021)

sttom said:


> I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.



"Discourse on Twitter..." That's really hearing from the experts!  "Wisconsin was able to build a road for Foxcon in 9 months." Big deal. One road in one part of one state with the full support of the governor and the state legislature. I wonder how they steamrollered the NIMBYs, or maybe the road didn't pass by any NIMBYs, as it was going to serve a factory, anyway. Compare that with what Amtrak (or any passenger rail operator) has to face -- hostile state governments, hostile host railroads, hostile NIMBYs, a price tag much higher than one road (and a passenger rail projext has to be compared with not only building the road, but also buying all the trucks and cars that drive on it and hiring all the drivers, too) and a significant political opposition to the very concept of passenger rail. If Amtrak can get half of these proposed routes, that will be doing pretty well, and what they can't get isn't really their fault.


----------



## Anthony V (Jun 2, 2021)

jis said:


> Interestingly, since Amtrak Day the CZ and before that the SFZ have never faced outright cancellation AFAIR. It has been down to thrice a week, specially west of Denver or SLC a few times, but never outright cancellation threat.
> 
> OTOH the SWC and before that the SWL went through several rounds of threats of outright cancellation, or more recently, destruction through segmentation.
> 
> So one could argue that it is the CZ which is the more stable transcon route.


Actually, the SFZ was on the chopping block as part of the Carter cuts, but the ongoing oil crisis at the time saved that route and a few others, including the Inter-American (today the Texas Eagle, albeit truncated), Southwest Limited (today the Southwest Chief), and the Pioneer (discontinued 1997).


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 2, 2021)

jiml said:


> ...VIA runs to Windsor on CN tracks to Walkerville - a couple of miles northeast of CP's tunnel to Detroit. Tracks past the station are partly abandoned or pulled up and replaced with parkland along the Detroit River. (The ROW can be seen on Google Maps.) Even if this route was rehabilitated, a large loop or turning track would be required to reach CP's tunnel slope - about 3 blocks from the river in a residential area.
> - CN passenger trains did share this tunnel with CP and NY Central (CSO) before VIA, however they exited before the present Windsor station on connecting tracks to a joint yard complex in central Windsor, then on CP through the tunnel. These tracks are now mostly overgrown and used to store parts cars for the nearby Ford plant.
> - The Amtrak Niagara Rainbow used the southerly Canso subdivision before joining CP for a stop at their station just prior to the tunnel on the Canadian side...



You seem to imply that there was a connection to the tunnel west of Walkerville. Those tracks never went past Goyeau Street downtown. The only connections west of Walkerville to anyplace else were the ferries.

CN passenger trains never used the tunnel. They terminated at Goyeau St. until 1961, then at Walkerville until VIA started. Cross-river CN passenger trains only went on the ferry to the GTW slip, and they quit doing that in 1955.

The Niagara Rainbow used the PC/CR CASO all the way to the border. It did not operate on CP tracks anywhere, except possibly joint trackage through Welland. The Windsor station had always been owned by CR and its predecessors until the sale of the CASO to CP/CN in 1985. CP's Windsor passenger trains had relocated to a remodeled CP yard office in 1968, with the last run on July 3, 1971.

Part of the CN line that its road freights use to get into Windsor, less than 3 miles long from Jefferson Blvd. to Pillette Rd., could be upgraded to take a passenger train from the CP up to the VIA line. A simple bus-shelter type station could be built at the site of the old MC Windsor depot to get service started. Or, the Essex Terminal could be upgraded, also less than 3 miles long. Or a passenger train could stay on the CP all the way to Chatham or beyond. These are entirely feasible projects. But I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## jiml (Jun 2, 2021)

Burns651 said:


> You seem to imply that there was a connection to the tunnel west of Walkerville. Those tracks never went past Goyeau Street downtown. The only connections west of Walkerville to anyplace else were the ferries.


I implied no such thing, merely stating the fact that the tracks extended past the current station as can be confirmed on Google Maps. One track is still visible. I also clearly stated why reclaiming that ROW wouldn't work given the descent to the tunnel starts at least 3 blocks from the river surrounded by housing.



Burns651 said:


> CN passenger trains never used the tunnel. They terminated at Goyeau St. until 1961, then at Walkerville until VIA started. Cross-river CN passenger trains only went on the ferry to the GTW slip, and they quit doing that in 1955.


According to the 1952 Official Guide, 8 different CN trains made the trek to Detroit. My understanding, from a retired CN employee, was that many of them used the line through the Ford plant before crossing CP at McDougall St. just past Van De Water yard to join the Canso/Caso/CSO line, passing NYC's Windsor station before proceeding through the tunnel.

I incorrectly called the Essex Terminal the line through the Ford plant (which it is), but believed its primary function was now storage. I think you'd agree it would need considerable upgrading to accommodate passenger trains, which factors into the the earlier point that no one is going to pay for this.

Describing the route of the Niagara Rainbow as using CP was an over-simplification in the interest of brevity. Others have referred to the "CP" station previously in this and other threads, so that seemed the best way to describe the route (as it exists today).


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 3, 2021)

Anthony V said:


> Actually, the SFZ was on the chopping block as part of the Carter cuts, but the ongoing oil crisis at the time saved that route and a few others, including the Inter-American (today the Texas Eagle, albeit truncated), Southwest Limited (today the Southwest Chief), and the Pioneer (discontinued 1997).



The DOT fumbled around with numerous alternatives that were influenced by the SFZ being on the Overland Route rather than the unavailable Moffat line. Here's what they presented at one point. It's a reminder that in North America eternal vigilance is the price of rail passenger service.


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 3, 2021)

jiml said:


> I implied no such thing, merely stating the fact that the tracks extended past the current station as can be confirmed on Google Maps. One track is still visible. I also clearly stated why reclaiming that ROW wouldn't work given the descent to the tunnel starts at least 3 blocks from the river surrounded by housing.
> 
> 
> According to the 1952 Official Guide, 8 different CN trains made the trek to Detroit. My understanding, from a retired CN employee, was that many of them used the line through the Ford plant before crossing CP at McDougall St. just past Van De Water yard to join the Canso/Caso/CSO line, passing NYC's Windsor station before proceeding through the tunnel.
> ...



Sorry that I mis-inferred about your riverfront ROW comments.

According to the May 1945 Official Guide, 4 CN trains went to Windsor and they all continued to Detroit: 183 (Sun. only), 105/The La Salle daily, 83 daily except Sunday, 117/Inter-City Limited daily, and 9, daily.

CN passenger trains never used the tunnel, regardless of what that employee told you. This has been documented in books and newspaper articles, as with the Windsor Star of 8/13/1955: "the passenger ferry service of the Canadian National Railways ceases September 25. Passengers, baggage, mail and express then will be transported by bus through the Detroit-Windsor Tunnel." CN passenger cars had been carried on the ferry to the GTW Detroit slip, which was adjacent to the GTW passenger depot. CN never used the tunnel until early 1975, when its ferries stopped running and it secured trackage rights over PC to use the tunnel for freight transfer runs.

The Essex Terminal passes by the Ford Windsor Engine Plant, and the CN connector between VIA and CP goes by the Ford Essex Engine Plant.


----------



## jiml (Jun 3, 2021)

Burns651 said:


> Sorry that I mis-inferred about your riverfront ROW comments.
> 
> According to the May 1945 Official Guide, 4 CN trains went to Windsor and they all continued to Detroit: 183 (Sun. only), 105/The La Salle daily, 83 daily except Sunday, 117/Inter-City Limited daily, and 9, daily.
> 
> ...


I am happy to be corrected regarding the ferry. Small studies of historically significant rail "oddities" is definitely a thing for me. As I said earlier in this thread, there is a whole complex story to tell about this one river crossing. Unfortunately little of it is still relevant to Amtrak establishing service between Detroit and Toronto, leaving a lot of detail on the "cutting room floor". In an ideal world, one of VIA's nice new Siemens trainsets with cabs at either ends would simply reverse at their Windsor station and proceed via the connector to the tunnel and Detroit. However it remains to be seen if VIA has any interest in participating. They've had a few opportunities over the years to coordinate connections with Amtrak at Detroit, including for a few years a train nicknamed the "GM Express" which ran from GM's Canadian head office in Oshawa, ON, to Windsor. Also, timetables used to show practical Amtrak connections and tips for doing so, as physical shuttles disappeared. The erosion of all these things - in stages - would seem to suggest VIA no longer considers this an important market. I think it has been established that while VIA's participation in a future Amtrak train would be helpful, it is not essential.

One subject that has not really been discussed is whether Amtrak service is predicated on the rehab of MCT and the move of other services there. That obstacle may be harder to overcome than anything on the Canadian side.


----------



## IndyLions (Jun 3, 2021)

jiml said:


> In an ideal world, one of VIA's nice new Siemens trainsets with cabs at either ends would simply reverse at their Windsor station and proceed via the connector to the tunnel and Detroit. However it remains to be seen if VIA has any interest in participating....



I agree this is the best-case scenario. Michigan DOT also has some similar fancy new Siemens train sets on the way, as does Amtrak. 



jiml said:


> One subject that has not really been discussed is whether Amtrak service is predicated on the rehab of MCT and the move of other services there. That obstacle may be harder to overcome than anything on the Canadian side.



This can’t be underestimated, but there is some light at the end of the (Detroit River) tunnel. Ford has stated publicly they are willing, and there is definitely the potential for a grass roots effort led by a local Detroit columnist who has covered the MCT renovation. And if somehow Biden can grease the skids for US Customs participation at MCT - it could actually happen.


----------



## jis (Jun 3, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> This can’t be underestimated, but there is some light at the end of the (Detroit River) tunnel. Ford has stated publicly they are willing, and there is definitely the potential for a grass roots effort led by a local Detroit columnist who has covered the MCT renovation. And if somehow Biden can grease the skids for US Customs participation at MCT - it could actually happen.


Someone needs to grease the corresponding Canadian skids to have them do Canadian C&I, ideally at MCT also, and someone has to fund the construction of the C&I facility. Montreal is apparently still struggling with theirs. At least this won't need any new legislative action at the federal level. Everything needed as far as treaties go, is already in place.


----------



## railiner (Jun 3, 2021)

Would love it if all Amtrak Detroit trains returned to the MCT. Let RTA run commuter service between there, or Ann Arbor to Pontiac...


----------



## Burns651 (Jun 3, 2021)

jiml said:


> I am happy to be corrected regarding the ferry. Small studies of historically significant rail "oddities" is definitely a thing for me. As I said earlier in this thread, there is a whole complex story to tell about this one river crossing. Unfortunately little of it is still relevant to Amtrak establishing service between Detroit and Toronto, leaving a lot of detail on the "cutting room floor". In an ideal world, one of VIA's nice new Siemens trainsets with cabs at either ends would simply reverse at their Windsor station and proceed via the connector to the tunnel and Detroit. However it remains to be seen if VIA has any interest in participating. They've had a few opportunities over the years to coordinate connections with Amtrak at Detroit, including for a few years a train nicknamed the "GM Express" which ran from GM's Canadian head office in Oshawa, ON, to Windsor. Also, timetables used to show practical Amtrak connections and tips for doing so, as physical shuttles disappeared. The erosion of all these things - in stages - would seem to suggest VIA no longer considers this an important market. I think it has been established that while VIA's participation in a future Amtrak train would be helpful, it is not essential.
> 
> One subject that has not really been discussed is whether Amtrak service is predicated on the rehab of MCT and the move of other services there. That obstacle may be harder to overcome than anything on the Canadian side.



Sorry if I came across as nitpicky. One of the drawbacks of communicating by message board, which would go more smoothly in person.

I'm just frustrated by the inherent ridiculousness of the rail transportation between two countries being so dead-ended with not even a one-seat bus transfer at the Michigan border; countries that have been friendly for over 200 years. I'm also frustrated how MDOT gave up on the International in 2004 at Port Huron, because it takes an act of God to get service restored once it's been taken away. Especially when you're dealing with CN. The Blue Water is nice, but it should have only been introduced if we could have also kept the International, whether at Port Huron or moving it to Detroit-Windsor.

I suppose we should be just grateful if VIA even ends up restoring the other Windsor trains cut with Covid.

I did notice in Amtrak's "Connects US" pdf of May 27 that for the first time it specifically mentioned the MC Depot for an extended Wolverine train. Not insignificant. Amtrak is always happy to move to a new facility where someone else pays for it! It would be the icing on the cake for the renovation and be so exciting.


----------



## jiml (Jun 3, 2021)

Burns651 said:


> Sorry if I came across as nitpicky. One of the drawbacks of communicating by message board, which would go more smoothly in person.
> 
> I'm just frustrated by the inherent ridiculousness of the rail transportation between two countries being so dead-ended with not even a one-seat bus transfer at the Michigan border; countries that have been friendly for over 200 years. I'm also frustrated how MDOT gave up on the International in 2004 at Port Huron, because it takes an act of God to get service restored once it's been taken away. Especially when you're dealing with CN. The Blue Water is nice, but it should have only been introduced if we could have kept the International, whether at Port Huron or moving it to Detroit-Windsor.
> 
> I suppose we should be just grateful if VIA even ends up restoring the other Windsor trains cut with Covid.


No worries at all. Even at an advancing age, I still consider myself to be a student - particularly when it involves railroad operations.

The history and demise of the International is a fascinating topic for another day. MDOT was only one "nail in its coffin".


----------



## IndyLions (Jun 3, 2021)

Yeah - I may be uninformed, but I think of the International as one (of many) cases where we let the terrorists win by allowing them to take away some of our freedom of movement. 

We are less free than we were on 9/11, which means we lost that battle. No excuse for that.


----------



## west point (Jun 4, 2021)

Right now Canada is still struggling with C-19. Their vaccination rate is very low. Until that gets resolved the Canadian government does not have time to even look at cross border service. Some expect that cross border will not restart until 2022. Really hope that is incorrect ?


----------



## IndyLions (Jun 4, 2021)

west point said:


> Right now Canada is still struggling with C-19. Their vaccination rate is very low. Until that gets resolved the Canadian government does not have time to even look at cross border service. Some expect that cross border will not restart until 2022. Really hope that is incorrect ?



As it relates to this discussion about proposed new Amtrak services, these are all wish list items for the next 15 years.

In the case of Detroit to Toronto - the Michigan Central Terminal building will not even be open until late 2022. New train service would be well after that.

Now - as far as the border opening up back up in general, I am anxious like you are for that to happen. Nothing like being told you can’t go somewhere to make you want to go there. There are plenty of trains in Canada I would love to ride.


----------



## railiner (Jun 4, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Nothing like being told you can’t go somewhere to make you want to go there.


Not necessarily. For me, being told I am not welcome somewhere, makes me not want to go there. International travel restrictions are turning into a boom for domestic tourist attractions. Since I was not able to go on an ocean cruise this summer, I booked instead a Columbia/Snake River cruise. I am sure that the National Parks will enjoy a lot of attention, as will Amtrak and motor trips. So will RVing...
Of course, when international travel restrictions are lifted, I will gladly go where I am welcome...


----------



## moselman66 (Jun 4, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Let me be clearer. There is an obvious gap on the map between Pueblo and La Junta.



Definitely a visual gap in the network that sticks out, and it might be workable. But a key question is if there would be enough demand to justify adding that connecting leg to the Front Range corridor.

Based on the Southwest Chief schedule, the potential Front Range trains to/from La Junta that would connect with the West (for example Denver with Los Angeles) would run in the middle of the night. Not many local corridor passengers in the middle of the night to serve, so that's kind of a non-starter to run a mostly empty overnight corridor train to serve connections.

A connection to/from the East is much more workable. Here's a rough potential schedule for 3x/day on the Front Range (including 1x Cheyenne) with one trip down to La Junta to connect with the Southwest Chief, The connection to/from Kansas City is shown as well.

*Southbound*


CHD605FCC71012351630DEN84014051800DEN91014251820COS104516001955PUB114517002055LAJ1830LAJ (swc)1929KCY (swc)653

*Northbound*


KCY (swc)2242LAJ (swc)749LAJ900PUB60510301600COS70511301700DEN84013051835DEN91513251855FCC104514552025CHD2135

These trip times are roughly in line with what Connect US aims for and they seem to not only offer a good hookup to/from the SW Chief but also useful times up and down the Front Range. So it's definitely possible that a reasonable Front Range schedule could also offer connections at La Junta to points east. (Like any speculative schedule, this is subject to hurdles like the cooperation of the host railroads, logistics of crews and maintenance rotations, etc. but for this discussion let's assume those are workable.)

Note that this schedule would also connect to the California Zephyr in Denver as well, but only to/from the East. It could be adjusted to connect to/from the West available by making the early-morning departures out of Pueblo and Cheyenne be at about 5am. The evening departures out of Denver would probably need to be pushed an hour or so later to have a good shot at routinely allowing connections coming from the west, too. And there lies a core conflict when it comes to all these new corridor train proposals. They are primarily to serve local traffic between the key points on the corridor. How much do you design them to connect to the LD network, knowing there's risk of harming the local demand? Pushing those morning inbounds an hour or so earlier (roughly 5am instead of 6am out of Pueblo and Cheyenne, 6am instead of 7am out of Colorado Springs and Fort Collins) will probably cost at _least_ a little traffic. Is that acceptable? What if it needs to be adjusted another half our earlier to 430 and 530? I love connectivity as much as anybody, but the corridors will probably live and die by how successfully they build traffic within the corridor itself, and if ridership is stunted by schedules contorted to allow good LD connections it risks the route failing.

Back to the topic of extending a train down to La Junta to connect to points east on the Southwest Chief. It 's workable, but is it likely to draw enough ridership to make it worthwhile? Who would ride that extra leg? There would be some local traffic served between La Junta itself and Denver/Colorado Springs/Pueblo but La Junta is a pretty small place -- in 2019 it boarded just under 5 passengers per departure on the SWC. This added leg would mostly be there for connections. But connections to where? Kansas City is the only significant market it would open up because the rest of the stretch between La Junta and Galesburg (where it overlaps the California Zephyr) is dotted with points which board a handful of passengers per departure. So the bulk of passengers on this new La Junta leg are probably going to be to/from Kansas City.

Kansas City-Denver is a sizable market though it's hard to estimate how large ridership would be for a direct KCY-DEN train -- potentially a lot, especially a daytime train where coach is a decent option. The concern I have about how many passengers Kansas City -Denver would attract via the La Junta extension is that it is substantially longer than alternatives, overnight, and requires a change of trains. I'm not one to say trains must be nearly as fast as the car, but I do think it has to be "reasonable", admittedly a subjective term. Driving Kansas City to Denver is about 8.5 hours, and a direct Greyhound does it in just over 11 with stops, including a daytime option. Amtrak would take over 15 hours overnight and require a connection. I doubt it would attract many passengers -- probably a tiny fraction of what a daytime train would running a more direct route. Can't really guess how many it would be each day but it would not surprise me if we're talking a few handfuls at best per train. And because that is the backbone of what would justify the La Junta extension, I think it's a tough sell.

If the Southwest Chief is rerouted to run through Pueblo that's largely a different story. Connections could take place without any added cost of extending the Front Range route. Not knowing what sort of times the train would pass through PUB it's hard to speculate how well schedules could mesh, and there is the same concern where you do not want to sacrifice local corridor traffic by scheduling inconvenient times in the name of LD connections. But should it reroute through Pueblo that's probably a much more plausible way to link Denver to the Southwest Chief, as much as I would enjoy seeing a La Junta extension in some ways.


----------



## jis (Jun 4, 2021)

Just to provide some context of the plans for station in Pueblo CO

Pueblo Station Area Plan (August 2020)


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 4, 2021)

I've strung schedules for the alternatives and rerouting the SWC via Pueblo comes out better than depending on a corridor train extension. Even with good intentions a transcon will be wildly late a few times a year and thereby miss the corridor train. Going through Pueblo the connection may drop back to the next corridor train. If a wait for the next corridor connection is too long, it's easier to get a chartered bus at Pueblo than at La Junta.

The best combination is:

Trains 3 and 4 via Pueblo and Walsenburg.
Corridor connection at Pueblo to Train 4 and from Train 3.
Bus connection via corridor rail stations to Train 3 and from Train 4.
Abandon Santa Fe line between La Junta and Trinidad except for the access to the Army armor training facility.
The big question, aside from the usual freight capacity issues colored by the decline in coal, is whether the extra time in each direction results in problems with the turn of equipment in Los Angeles.

DEN<>KCY was a strong enough route to have twice daily service on the KP line till May 1971. However, like DEN<>OMA the most popular schedule was overnight. The DEN<>KCY trip via the Santa Fe line would satisfy some overnight travelers and adds connections onward at KCY. There's an existing schedule pattern now from LAJ to NOL for the hardy. The growth of Colorado Springs and its military dependent traffic is a factor as well.


----------



## jebr (Jun 4, 2021)

Short of rerouting the train to Pueblo (which would make quite a bit of sense) it seems the best option would be to provide connectivity with a Thruway bus, maybe contracting with the agencies that currently run the Bustang and Outrider services to provide additional train-oriented service. If kept on the existing route, I'd probably do connections in Trinidad or Raton - it cuts off a fair amount of time (and gives better departure/arrival times throughout CO) for day trips to ABQ and points west, and the timing wouldn't be terrible for eastbound traffic (or westbound arrivals) either - certainly La Junta would have shorter trip times, but if running to both isn't an option going straight south on the interstate seems to make more sense.


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 5, 2021)

Bustang might have a problem with going outside of the state because sovereign immunity wouldn't protect them. I worked on the origin of the DEN <> RAT connection in 1997 after the _Desert Wind _was discontinued. We looked at LAJ, TRI, and RAT. RAT gave the best times at Denver and avoided conflicting with the big group moves of Boy Scouts between the Midwest and Raton. Also, there's more to do in Raton near the station if things go awry.

Amtrak and CDOT (Bustang) have talked but my surmise is that CDOT has just had too much on its plate.


----------



## Cal (Jun 5, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> The big question, aside from the usual freight capacity issues colored by the decline in coal, is whether the extra time in each direction results in problems with the turn of equipment in Los Angeles.


The Builder does a fairly fast turn in Seattle and Portland, only about 6-7 hours. The Chief turn time is 7-8. How much more time would the rerouting through Pueblo add?


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 5, 2021)

Cal said:


> The Builder does a fairly fast turn in Seattle and Portland, only about 6-7 hours. The Chief turn time is 7-8. How much more time would the rerouting through Pueblo add?


Using the pre-Amtrak schedules and a dwell in Pueblo I estimated 3:30 to 3:50 between LAJ and TRI. That's about 2 hours more than the current route. Times 2 for the round-trip. It's akin to the _Empire Builder _running via Grand Forks. In terms of marketing, it's a penalty in terms of travel time, it's a bonus in terms of tapping Front Range populations, and it's more dramatic scenery than the current route.

I've attached my 2014 estimates.


----------



## Cal (Jun 5, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> Using the pre-Amtrak schedules and a dwell in Pueblo I estimated 3:30 to 3:50 between LAJ and TRI. That's about 2 hours more than the current route. Times 2 for the round-trip. It's akin to the _Empire Builder _running via Grand Forks. In terms of marketing, it's a penalty in terms of travel time, it's a bonus in terms of tapping Front Range populations, and it's more dramatic scenery than the current route.
> 
> I've attached my 2014 estimates.


I think it's doable, the LA Yards are generally pretty good, right? 

Any videos of the more dramatic scenery? I'd love to see it


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 5, 2021)

Cal said:


> I think it's doable, the LA Yards are generally pretty good, right?
> 
> Any videos of the more dramatic scenery? I'd love to see it


It isn't CZ level scenery but the Pueblo - Trinidad former C&S line is closer to the Rockies' Spanish Peaks than the former Santa Fe line. The penalty for that is lots of curves. I took a look at it in Google street view but that's mostly the view from I-25.

I did find a well-done amateur video from the Walsenburg area that features one of Colorado's literally big attractions - a beach without an ocean.

Walsenburg and sand dunes

Walsenburg | Spanish Peaks County - Explore Southern Colorado's rich history, natural wonders, and artistic inspiration


----------



## Cal (Jun 5, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> It isn't CZ level scenery but the Pueblo - Trinidad former C&S line is closer to the Rockies' Spanish Peaks than the former Santa Fe line. The penalty for that is lots of curves. I took a look at it in Google street view but that's mostly the view from I-25.
> 
> I did find a well-done amateur video from the Walsenburg area that features one of Colorado's literally big attractions - a beach without an ocean.
> 
> Walsenburg and sand dunes


Thanks for the information. I went over it on Google Earth. Looks like decent scenery. 

That 'beach' is neat.


----------



## railiner (Jun 5, 2021)

As the third comment on that video points out, the Great Sand Dunes National Park is not at Walsenburg, but on the other side of the Sangre de Christo Mountains, in the San Luis Valley, but the route along I-25 is closer to the mountains than the current one.









Great Sand Dunes National Park and Preserve · Colorado


★★★★★ · National park




www.google.com


----------



## jpakala (Jun 5, 2021)

Having read the Pueblo Station Area Plan (Aug 2020), I think it's excellent but wish the Union Avenue advantage of covered parking were added as a "Pro" factor and the lack of it at the Civic Center as a negative. Concluding a trip (bags in hand and so on) by finding one's car covered with snow & ice (or even blazing hot in summer) is not pleasant.


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> I've strung schedules for the alternatives and rerouting the SWC via Pueblo comes out better than depending on a corridor train extension. Even with good intentions a transcon will be wildly late a few times a year and thereby miss the corridor train. Going through Pueblo the connection may drop back to the next corridor train. If a wait for the next corridor connection is too long, it's easier to get a chartered bus at Pueblo than at La Junta.
> 
> The best combination is:
> 
> ...


As far as freight congestion issue goes apparently it could be just a short/medium term thing. Apparently the State of Colorado, BNSF and UP have been considering a long term plan to move all heavy freight traffic onto a new line to be constructed further east, away from the Front Range. There are apparently rather large operational advantages and cost savings to be had by such a move. The proposal, including maps and initial costing, is detailed in this document:



https://www.codot.gov/library/studies/study-archives/railroadstudy/documents/finalreport-2009/r2c2_final_report-full020609.pdf



I have no idea what the current state of this proposal is.

If that happens, the Front Range Line will become mostly a passenger line. If in conjunction Amtrak diverts the SWC via Pueblo then it is only Amtrak that will abandon La Junta - Trinidad. A lot of the heavy freight that now travels via Walsenberg to Trinidad will travel the route Las Animas Jct. La Junta - Trinidad instead. The upside or downside (depending on how one looks at it) of this could be that Pueblo - Walsenberg - Trinidad becomes the responsibility of Amtrak/State of Colorado, as freight mostly abandons it.

I just chanced upon this document while poking around the ColoDOT site.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 5, 2021)

Thanks for digging that up. It has been below everyone's radar on rail discussion groups, it seems. For certain, this is news to me. The re-route would be pure BNSF traffic. Brush is too far east of Denver to benefit the Union Pacific RR, though, even with trackage rights on the BNSF. The new route would not be too hard to build: the topography is basically as flat as a pancake. Avoiding Denver and running higher speed trains would benefit BNSF customers. However, the Union Pacific RR also runs trains between Denver and Pueblo.


----------



## jis (Jun 5, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Thanks for digging that up. It has been below everyone's radar on rail discussion groups, it seems. For certain, this is news to me. The re-route would be pure BNSF traffic. Brush is too far east of Denver to benefit the Union Pacific RR, though, even with trackage rights on the BNSF. The new route would not be too hard to build: the topography is basically as flat as a pancake. Avoiding Denver and running higher speed trains would benefit BNSF customers. However, the Union Pacific RR also runs trains between Denver and Pueblo.


Actually Jim Souby who chairs the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission had mentioned it to me in the passing. That is where I first heard of it. When I ran into it I immediately recognized it for what it is since it was not entirely new to me, at least conceptually.


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 5, 2021)

The high plains bypass was proposed in the 1970's by an R. L. Banks study. It was done at the dawn of the coal traffic boom and when the Joint Line owners Rio Grande and Santa Fe and tenant Burlington Northern were still using helpers instead of distributed power. The very professional study showed that the new railway would pay for itself.

The problem was that most of the coal was on BN and so it would have been the main beneficiary. The owners of the Joint Line would have lost revenue. In the bigger picture they might have benefited by moving intermodal traffic better, but that was hypothetical. (Santa Fe took trailers off at La Junta for Denver at one point in the coal era.)

So nothing happened on the high plains. It was too bad for Limon, which would have been the logical place for a warehousing distribution center.

By the time the more recent study was done a lot of things had changed. RTD (my then employer) and CDOT had helped finance numerous grade separations and realignments on the Joint Line (shared now by LRT lines) which reduced the political concern about blocked crossings. BNSF was now an owner but the end of the coal boom was in sight. Helpers had joined the cabooses in the great rip track in the sky. Throughout most of the time between the two studies the highway lobby had controlled the legislature.

There was intermittent interest in the idea. In 2001 a colleague and I were asked by our general manager to determine whether the existing Front Range _alignment (not infrastructure)_ could be used by a successful corridor service, given relocation of the coal traffic. He had heard this discussed somewhere. We concluded that it could be given continual increases in I-25 congestion resulting in a _Surfliner_ scenario where 1950's rail speeds gradually become competitive. [Railfan note: BNSF agreed that it looked realistic with infrastructure improvements. It should have because we used their old employee timetables from Diesel streamliner days, courtesy of the hobby book shop located in Denver Union Station.]

So now the question is whether it is more cost effective in developing a Front Range corridor service to add track where necessary on the Front Range or to divert through freight to the high plains. I think the decline of coal has settled this question.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 6, 2021)

Thanks, Willbridge, for that piece of history!

As you probably know, the new line would not divert all freight traffic because both the UP and BNSF use what's called the Joint Line between Denver and Pueblo, where they go their separate ways. IINM, it would have been used mainly by BNSF coal trains, but the number of those is diminishing. I don't see this ever happening, as a result. We agree there.


----------



## railiner (Jun 6, 2021)

The craziest part of the whole Joint Line history, was the abandonment of the ATSF line thru Colorado Springs, and the resulting single track bottleneck, right at the dawn of the mentioned coal boom....









Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Passenger Depot (Colorado Springs, Colorado) - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## rail sale (Jun 7, 2021)

I've been checking


jebr said:


> A map overlaying Amtrak's expansion proposals on the existing Amtrak network, courtesy of Yonah Freemark on Twitter.
> 
> View attachment 22658


Yonah Freemark Let me take off from his map, I still need to work on the counts, but here is a map with some of the details from the 2035 announcement. Tableau Public


----------



## neroden (Jun 12, 2021)

jis said:


> As far as freight congestion issue goes apparently it could be just a short/medium term thing. Apparently the State of Colorado, BNSF and UP have been considering a long term plan to move all heavy freight traffic onto a new line to be constructed further east, away from the Front Range. There are apparently rather large operational advantages and cost savings to be had by such a move. The proposal, including maps and initial costing, is detailed in this document:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Indefinitely suspended for an interesting reason. Most of the north-south traffic they were planning to relocate was coal traffic, and the eastern bypass line was designed to service coal mines. The coal traffic is disappearing *entirely* as the entire coal-burning business disappears, very quickly. There isn't much else in the way of north-south traffic, so it doesn't seem worth building new lines for coal mines which are going to close soon. So the design has to be redesigned. In fact, with the coal traffic disappearing, the freight congestion is going to go away anyway...



> If that happens, the Front Range Line will become mostly a passenger line. If in conjunction Amtrak diverts the SWC via Pueblo then it is only Amtrak that will abandon La Junta - Trinidad. A lot of the heavy freight that now travels via Walsenberg to Trinidad will travel the route Las Animas Jct. La Junta - Trinidad instead. The upside or downside (depending on how one looks at it) of this could be that Pueblo - Walsenberg - Trinidad becomes the responsibility of Amtrak/State of Colorado, as freight mostly abandons it.
> 
> I just chanced upon this document while poking around the ColoDOT site.



I would love to know what non-coal freight traffic, if any, currently operates on either the Joint Line or on the BNSF line north of Denver. I haven't seen a good description of the non-coal traffic, since coal traffic was so dominant for so long.


----------



## jis (Jun 8, 2022)

Governor Polis has signed a bill which funds the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission to the tune of $9 Million to develop a plan for passenger service along the Front Range in Colorado.









Polis signs funding bill for Front Range Passenger Rail project


Gov. Jared Polis on Tuesday signed a bill into law that provides nearly $9 million in funding for Front Range Passenger Rail planning and development.




denvergazette.com


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 8, 2022)

jis said:


> Governor Polis has signed a bill which funds the Front Range Passenger Rail Commission to the tune of $9 Million to develop a plan for passenger service along the Front Range in Colorado.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The G_azette_ site is run by the leans-to-the-right Colorado Springs daily. It will cover this through the years to come, but will make sure that critics have a part in every story. The growth of the Springs -- on its own and as a bedroom community -- is one of the things that has resulted in renewed interest in the rail idea; in the usual pattern, CDOT completed additional lanes and the real estate developers are already selling the "easy commute".


----------

