# Daytime Corridor Routes



## Michigan Mom (Apr 13, 2021)

MODERATOR NOTE: many of the comments in this thread were split off from another thread "First NEC Sleeper Journey - A Huge Letdown" and were off topic. Thank you for keeping comments on topic.

On the middle-of-the-night LSL boarding times in Ohio.. I have never understood the 9:30 pm departure out of Chicago. Leave 6 hours earlier, board during evening hours in TOL and CLE, arrive NYP around lunchtime.
I'm sure there's a reason, connected to equipment routing, I just don't know what it is.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 13, 2021)

Probably to avoid a lot of missed connections from trains 4, 6, 8 and 22.


----------



## jiml (Apr 13, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> On the middle-of-the-night LSL boarding times in Ohio.. I have never understood the 9:30 pm departure out of Chicago. Leave 6 hours earlier, board during evening hours in TOL and CLE, arrive NYP around lunchtime.
> I'm sure there's a reason, connected to equipment routing, I just don't know what it is.


I wonder if times in upstate New York are a factor? That said, they have other alternatives; passengers in Ohio do not (yet).


----------



## fdaley (Apr 13, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> On the middle-of-the-night LSL boarding times in Ohio.. I have never understood the 9:30 pm departure out of Chicago. Leave 6 hours earlier, board during evening hours in TOL and CLE, arrive NYP around lunchtime.
> I'm sure there's a reason, connected to equipment routing, I just don't know what it is.



I think the issue is protecting connections from the west coast. The western trains all are due in Chicago in mid-afternoon, so a 3:30 p.m. departure for the east would be cutting it too close, even though that would be a much better schedule for local travel between Chicago, Ohio and the east. Even when the Lake Shore used to leave Chicago at 6 or 7 p.m., it too often wound up being held for connections from delayed western trains, making it late for the duration of its run.

Of course, if we could have a second frequency on the route, an early afternoon departure from Chicago -- and mid-morning arrival in New York -- would make a lot of sense. And westbound, we could have an evening departure from New York, which would offer much more palatable times at Cleveland (7-8 a.m.) and Toledo (9-10 a.m.).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 13, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> On the middle-of-the-night LSL boarding times in Ohio.. I have never understood the 9:30 pm departure out of Chicago. Leave 6 hours earlier, board during evening hours in TOL and CLE, arrive NYP around lunchtime.
> I'm sure there's a reason, connected to equipment routing, I just don't know what it is.



Partially because that would take another set of equipment seeing 49/48 is a same day flip. I really doubt Chicago could accomplish a turn in 6 hours. And partially because it is the clean up train east from the western LDs


----------



## jiml (Apr 13, 2021)

Bring back the Broadway Limited.


----------



## Rasputin (Apr 13, 2021)

When was the Chicago departure of the Lake Shore moved back to 9:30 p.m? I am guessing that it was about 2005 but I may be way off.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 13, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> On the middle-of-the-night LSL boarding times in Ohio.. I have never understood the 9:30 pm departure out of Chicago. Leave 6 hours earlier, board during evening hours in TOL and CLE, arrive NYP around lunchtime.
> I'm sure there's a reason, connected to equipment routing, I just don't know what it is.


As has been mentioned, moving it 6 hours earlier would eliminate guaranteed connections, move the upstate New York stations to the middle of the night, and potentially require another consist. It could also result in overcrowded conditions at Chicago Union Station and even though it would be an improvement, Cleveland would still be served at 11 PM or so. There's also other scheduling considerations, such as the fact that the schedule would move the Chicago departure prior to the end of the work day (limiting appeal for people on 9-5 work schedules), as well as the fact that it would result in many stations being served with poor hours in one direction but not the other, which could result in people not taking the train either way because the schedule in one direction is undesirable.

Having said that, I'd definitely like to see additional frequencies on this route. Amtrak's plans seem to include day trains from Chicago-Cleveland via Michigan as well as trips from NYC to Cleveland with some operating via upstate New York and others via Pittsburgh. I also think another Chicago-NEC train could work, possibly Chicago-NYC via Pittsburgh with the overnight section between Pittsburgh or Philadelphia or even a daytime schedule, although that would require runtime improvements to be practical.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 15, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> Partially because that would take another set of equipment seeing 49/48 is a same day flip. I really doubt Chicago could accomplish a turn in 6 hours. And partially because it is the clean up train east from the western LDs



That makes sense about the Chicago turn. Do they use the same equipment at NYP? 48 arrives in the evening and 49 departs at 3:40 the next afternoon. Is the long turn time so they can do a more intensive cleaning?


----------



## fdaley (Apr 15, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> That makes sense about the Chicago turn. Do they use the same equipment at NYP? 48 arrives in the evening and 49 departs at 3:40 the next afternoon. Is the long turn time so they can do a more intensive cleaning?



Last I knew, the Lake Shore equipment was pooled in New York with the train sets of the Florida trains and the Crescent. At least that's how it was sold when the consists were standardized back in the '90s. As I recall, the Viewliners were prone to winter plumbing issues in their early days, so cycling them down to the south gave them a chance to fully thaw out before they were sent back out on the Lake Shore route.


----------



## jis (Apr 15, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> That makes sense about the Chicago turn. Do they use the same equipment at NYP? 48 arrives in the evening and 49 departs at 3:40 the next afternoon. Is the long turn time so they can do a more intensive cleaning?


They do not touch the consist for servicing until the morning LD departures from NYP have been dispatched out of the yard. There is no night shift for servicing crew for LD trains at Sunnyside, They went bye bye quite a while back and has been discussed in this forum when it happened.

Sometimes the Lake Shore consist is swapped with a Florida train to send it to Hialeah for servicing or thawing in the winter. However, a Lake Shore consist cannot be used as such without some additional car swapping for any of the other LD trains out of NYP because the Lake Shore consist lacks a Lounge/Cafe car in the form it operates to/from New York.


----------



## fdaley (Apr 15, 2021)

jis said:


> They do not touch the consist for servicing until the morning LD departures from NYP have been dispatched out of the yard. There is no night shift for servicing crew for LD trains at Sunnyside, They went bye bye quite a while back and has been discussed in this forum when it happened.
> 
> Sometimes the Lakeshore consist is swapped with a Florida train to send it to Hialeah for servicing or thawing in the winter. However, a Lake Shore consist cannot be used as such without some addition car swapping for any of the other LD trains out of NYP because the Lake Shore consist lacks a Lounge/Cafe car in the form it operates to/from New York.



Thanks for the more up-to-date information.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 15, 2021)

So just as a reminder, a few years back there was plans to change the services around. The plans put forward were:

A) Switch departure time at Chicago between the LSL (Lake Shore Limited) and the CL (Capital Limited)
B) Run one or both LSL, CL thur Michigan.
C) Have a few cars split off the CL at Pittsburg to run to NYC.

All these plans were removed on the Web site several years ago.


----------



## jis (Apr 15, 2021)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So just as a reminder, a few years back there was plans to change the services around. The plans put forward were:
> 
> A) Switch departure time at Chicago between the LSL (Lake Shore Limited) and the CL (Capital Limited)
> B) Run one or both LSL, CL thur Michigan.
> ...


Of these, I got the impression that the idea about swapping Chicago departure times and running the LSL via Michigan came within weeks of implementation, and was then scrapped since apparently timetable issues could not be worked out with all concerned parties.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Apr 15, 2021)

So close, but so far. Really not sure if I would push this change of departure times myself, but adding Michigan service is something I would be interested in seeing.


----------



## jis (Apr 15, 2021)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So close, but so far. Really not sure if I would push this change of departure times myself, but adding Michigan service is something I would be interested in seeing.


Running the LSL via Michigan almost has the corollary that the schedules need to be swapped. Otherwise the Boston section gets into Boston way too late into the night.


----------



## railiner (Apr 15, 2021)

jis said:


> Running the LSL via Michigan almost has the corollary that the schedules need to be swapped. Otherwise the Boston section gets into Boston way too late into the night.


I would rather see the LSL remain on its traditional route, regardless of what time. If they want to fool around with sending a thru train thru Michigan, let 'em do it to the Capitol. JMHO...


----------



## bratkinson (Apr 15, 2021)

I think the biggest problem with routing either the LSL or Cap through Detroit is it would add about 4 hours to the total travel time either way. Westbound, lose an hour+ TOL-DET (Dearborn?), and then approximately follow train #351's schedule to Chicago with its 7 stops and single track vs 3 stops on (more busy) double track as it is today.

Eastbound, with current CHI departure times, would put the Cap into WAS about 5 PM (possibly breaking connections with the Slivers and the Crescent assuming it might be 2 hours late) or the LSL into NYP WELL after dinnertime, making getting transportation to passengers homes problematic...possibly missing the last LIRR trains to 'way out there' on Long Island, for example. It would be around midnight arrival in BOS with no connections to any train at that hour.

Move the Eastbound departure times 4 hours earlier, and most of trains from the west will no longer connect. Remember, Chicago arrival & departure times are set up for good connections between LD trains from the east with the west and vice versa.

Similarly, westbound, 4 hour later arrival times would jeopardize connections to the western trains, especially #7 & #21. Make those departures from NYP and WAS 4 hours earlier and you lose connections from the Silvers and Crescent as well. Remember, ideally, one wants a 4 hour connection LD to LD in CHI and WAS as 2-3 hours late is all to common these days.


----------



## Cal (Apr 15, 2021)

bratkinson said:


> I think the biggest problem with routing either the LSL or Cap through Detroit is it would add about 4 hours to the total travel time either way. Westbound, lose an hour+ TOL-DET (Dearborn?), and then approximately follow train #351's schedule to Chicago with its 7 stops and single track vs 3 stops on (more busy) double track as it is today.
> 
> Eastbound, with current CHI departure times, would put the Cap into WAS about 5 PM (possibly breaking connections with the Slivers and the Crescent assuming it might be 2 hours late) or the LSL into NYP WELL after dinnertime, making getting transportation to passengers homes problematic...possibly missing the last LIRR trains to 'way out there' on Long Island, for example. It would be around midnight arrival in BOS with no connections to any train at that hour.
> 
> ...


So it seems like the optimal schedule is the one, or close to the one we have currently. However a second LSL service that runs through Michigan instead could possibly work (if equipment was available)


----------



## railiner (Apr 16, 2021)

Still think the way to go would be to revert to the old timetable that had the 'Lake Cities' do a cross-platform transfer at Toledo, and leave the through trains alone.





__





The Museum of Railway Timetables (timetables.org)






www.timetables.org


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 16, 2021)

Cal said:


> So it seems like the optimal schedule is the one, or close to the one we have currently.



Well, yes. It's a fun hobby to complain about Amtrak management, but they aren't totally stupid.


----------



## me_little_me (Apr 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, yes. It's a fun hobby to complain about Amtrak management, but they aren't totally stupid.


Can we vote on that?


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 16, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> Well, yes. It's a fun hobby to complain about Amtrak management, but they aren't totally stupid.




Sometimes I think we forget that Amtrak has professionals working to find the optimal schedules, while retaining access to the best possible date sources. Its unsurprising that they often come up with the least offensive schedule (for the resources they have).

While there may be some on this forum who are qualified to critique Amtrak's schedules and suggest poor management, I am not one of them.


----------



## fdaley (Apr 16, 2021)

railiner said:


> Still think the way to go would be to revert to the old timetable that had the 'Lake Cities' do a cross-platform transfer at Toledo, and leave the through trains alone.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I made the cross-platform transfer at Toledo back in the late '80s and early '90s, and it worked fine. I would rather see that restored than to reroute one of the through trains and thereby lengthen the schedule substantially for through travelers. One challenge is that the new station in Detroit is not well located for continuing onward to Toledo.


----------



## bms (Apr 16, 2021)

fdaley said:


> I made the cross-platform transfer at Toledo back in the late '80s and early '90s, and it worked fine. I would rather see that restored than to reroute one of the through trains and thereby lengthen the schedule substantially for through travelers. One challenge is that the new station in Detroit is not well located for continuing onward to Toledo.



There is already daily service from Chicago to Detroit via the Wolverine, Buffalo to New York via the Maple Leaf, and Pittsburgh to New York via the Pennsylvanian. I would much rather bridge the gap between Detroit and either Pittsburgh/Buffalo by extending one or more of those trains, rather than messing with an existing long-distance route. I think a section of the Maple Leaf could continue to Detroit, or there could be a cross-platform transfer at Buffalo to a Buffalo-Detroit train.

If not for the international borders, the fastest Chicago to New York route would probably be the Wolverine route from Chicago to Detroit, then crossing Southern Ontario before following the Lake Shore Limited route from Buffalo to New York.


----------



## neroden (Apr 17, 2021)

jis said:


> Of these, I got the impression that the idea about swapping Chicago departure times and running the LSL via Michigan came within weeks of implementation, and was then scrapped since apparently timetable issues could not be worked out with all concerned parties.


So, good work which definitely should have happened, sabotaged by someone. We don't know which "concerned party" it was, I suppose. This is the sort of thing where a strong federal administration committed to improved passenger rail could bang some heads together and make it happen.


----------



## MARC Rider (Apr 17, 2021)

fdaley said:


> I made the cross-platform transfer at Toledo back in the late '80s and early '90s, and it worked fine. I would rather see that restored than to reroute one of the through trains and thereby lengthen the schedule substantially for through travelers. One challenge is that the new station in Detroit is not well located for continuing onward to Toledo.


It seems to me that the obvious service expansion is to add Toledo - Detroit - Flint and maybe Saginaw, too. Frequent trains through the day to take traffic off of I-75. Convenient cross platform connections to the E-W LD trains in Toledo. Cross - platform connections in Detroit to Dearborn and Ann Arbor (there should probably be commuter train service.) Connections at Flint for Lansing and Grand Rapids. Connecting service to Canada if the two counties ever get their act together about an efficient border control process; otherwise, might as well just take a taxi to/from the VIA station in Windsor.


----------



## jis (Apr 17, 2021)

Trains changing direction of travel at terminal stations to continue their journey is not rocket science. It already happens at LA Union Station and Philadelphia 30th St.. It should not be a problem to institute same at a hypothetical future Detroit Station at the Ford facility.


----------



## fdaley (Apr 17, 2021)

bms said:


> There is already daily service from Chicago to Detroit via the Wolverine, Buffalo to New York via the Maple Leaf, and Pittsburgh to New York via the Pennsylvanian. I would much rather bridge the gap between Detroit and either Pittsburgh/Buffalo by extending one or more of those trains, rather than messing with an existing long-distance route. I think a section of the Maple Leaf could continue to Detroit, or there could be a cross-platform transfer at Buffalo to a Buffalo-Detroit train



I agree with all of this. Certainly historically there was a lot of rail service linking Detroit and Cleveland to Buffalo and Pittsburgh, and there are still a lot of people who live and travel between that network of cities. The challenge with extending the Pennsylvanian and Maple Leaf is that you begin to push the limits of day-train scheduling if you're keeping New York as the eastern terminal. You'd wind up with a couple of trains that would arrive in Detroit at 11 p.m. westbound and would leave at 6 or 7 a.m. eastbound. If we had the ability to add a second New York-to-Chicago frequency, running overnight on the eastern end, it would help to feed traffic to multi-frequency Michigan-Toledo and Cincinnati-Cleveland corridors.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 18, 2021)

fdaley said:


> I agree with all of this. Certainly historically there was a lot of rail service linking Detroit and Cleveland to Buffalo and Pittsburgh, and there are still a lot of people who live and travel between that network of cities. The challenge with extending the Pennsylvanian and Maple Leaf is that you begin to push the limits of day-train scheduling if you're keeping New York as the eastern terminal. You'd wind up with a couple of trains that would arrive in Detroit at 11 p.m. westbound and would leave at 6 or 7 a.m. eastbound. If we had the ability to add a second New York-to-Chicago frequency, running overnight on the eastern end, it would help to feed traffic to multi-frequency Michigan-Toledo and Cincinnati-Cleveland corridors.



The Palmetto essentially does this on the main North-South core line and does just fine. Yes the end point times are a bit rough and can easily be made worse by delays but it isn't a bad run. I would argue you could get a Palmetto style day train on quite a few routes that make sense. 

New York-Detroit via Cleveland
New York-Cincinnati via Cleveland 
Atlanta-New York
Atlanta-Chicago via Nashville, Louisville
Charlotte-Miami via Columbia


----------



## fdaley (Apr 18, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> The Palmetto essentially does this on the main North-South core line and does just fine. Yes the end point times are a bit rough and can easily be made worse by delays but it isn't a bad run. I would argue you could get a Palmetto style day train on quite a few routes that make sense.
> 
> New York-Detroit via Cleveland
> New York-Cincinnati via Cleveland
> ...



Oh, my point wasn't that a Palmetto-style schedule wouldn't work between Detroit and New York. I think it's a good idea -- and so are the Atlanta day runs you suggest. But for Cleveland, Detroit and Cincinnati, you'd make the service useful to more people -- and promote more local travel between city pairs in the region -- if you had additional frequencies in the Midwest that would be helped by connectivity with an additional overnight schedule to the east. Also, if you just extend the Pennsylvanian to Detroit and change the schedule to make for palatable times at Detroit, if that's still your only train west of Harrisburg in PA, you wind up with schedule times there that may not be as attractive for local travel between western PA and the east.

When Amtrak puts out a map that shows them perhaps adding service on the 3-C corridor in Ohio, I just wonder how any of us in the east would connect to that new service, given that the only through trains now pass through Ohio in the wee hours. A day run on an extended Pennsylvanian or Maple Leaf would help, but I think you'd want more than that.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 18, 2021)

There are tracks out of Ann Arbor that I believe, but don't know for sure, (not much info out there) that run all the way to Toledo, hardly ever used. Owned by the old Ann Arbor railroad, a freight company. Oh the possibilities! Also don't know where the tracks terminate in Ann Arbor.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 18, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> There are tracks out of Ann Arbor that I believe, but don't know for sure, (not much info out there) that run all the way to Toledo, hardly ever used. Owned by the old Ann Arbor railroad, a freight company. Oh the possibilities! Also don't know where the tracks terminate in Ann Arbor.



Ann Arbor-Toledo would certainly be the _easiest_ connectivity between the east and Michigan, with Toledo to Dearborn the second easiest. Unfortunately, both those routes bypass Detroit. So even though it’s more difficult, I’d prefer to see Toledo-Detroit as the connector, then head off to Dearborn, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor westbound.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 18, 2021)

jis said:


> Speaking of daytime trains, why do I seldom see mention of Chicago - Denver, which is actually doable?



I always wondered why Chicago - Denver wasn't a more utilized market. Amtrak 5 has a great overnight service. 
If only they could manage to electrify that corridor. Its very straight, and speeds could probably get high enough to have a HrSR service.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 18, 2021)

jis said:


> Speaking of daytime trains, why do I seldom see mention of Chicago - Denver, which is actually doable?





Tlcooper93 said:


> I always wondered why Chicago - Denver wasn't a more utilized market. Amtrak 5 has a great overnight service...



Chicago to Denver IS a great overnight service - but a day train needs to stop where people want to get off.

If you look at the Zephyr route, only the endpoints and Omaha are major destinations.

Now if a daytime CHI-DEN train service included the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines AND Omaha - that would be a different story.


----------



## jis (Apr 18, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Chicago to Denver IS a great overnight service - but a day train needs to stop where people want to get off.
> 
> If you look at the Zephyr route, only the endpoints and Omaha are major destinations.
> 
> Now if a daytime CHI-DEN train service included the Quad Cities, Iowa City, Des Moines AND Omaha - that would be a different story.


We should refrain from refusing to work on the good awaiting the perfect perhaps?


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 18, 2021)

jis said:


> We should refrain from refusing to work on the good awaiting the perfect perhaps?



Touché


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 18, 2021)

jis said:


> Atlanta to New York block time is somewhere between 17 and 19 hours. It is hard to do a reasonable daytime train with non-unfriendly end times. However, it is possible to do an Atlanta to Washington DC daytime train, and historically I believe that is what was done, when such existed. Or you could take something like 65/66/67 and extend it all the way to Atlanta. That would be fesible too, and possibly quite lucrative too.
> 
> Similarly Miami to Charlotte may be difficult, but Orlando to Charlotte may be possible, depending on how slow or fast Columbia to Charlotte is.
> 
> ...



I do think you might be able to stretch Atlanta to Chicago. For the most part it's all 60 mph freight lines which means it is FRA Class IV so it is good for 79 MPH. I think when I worked out the schedule a few months back I had an early departure from Chicago like 6 AM or something like that with an 11:30 PM departure from Atlanta continuing to Florida. But I also included a long stop in Louisville to combine a train out of Detroit into the consist as well. Indy to Louisville is the only stretch that I think is less than 60 MPH for freight I believe that is 40 MPH Freight so 60 for Passenger. So I do think that is doable. What would also be useful is speeding up the CSX routing from Indy on up to Chicago.

As far as Columbia to Charlotte the R Line is rated 49 MPH in it's current status. But it's only 103 miles from the Charlotte Amtrak Station to Columbia. If you could get that up to 60 MPH it's only an hour and a half without stops. Add about seven minutes in so you can get a stop in Rock Hill and Winnsboro in. And it should be doable. I would actually consider ending that one in Tampa which would be doable I believe.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 18, 2021)

IndyLions said:


> Ann Arbor-Toledo would certainly be the _easiest_ connectivity between the east and Michigan, with Toledo to Dearborn the second easiest. Unfortunately, both those routes bypass Detroit. So even though it’s more difficult, I’d prefer to see Toledo-Detroit as the connector, then head off to Dearborn, Ypsilanti and Ann Arbor westbound.



Yes, that's a good point. I like the upside of the Detroit-Toledo possibility. OTOH there is already a tortuous bus route that connects Lansing, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Detroit to Toledo.... a train from ARB to TOL would shorten the bus connections, there could be one bus trip from Detroit and Dearborn to Ann Arbor, and another from Lansing, maybe including Battle Creek... by the time you get to Kzoo you might as well connect in Chicago. Seems like this would encourage feeder traffic to the coast.... then again if my ideas had any merit someone at Amtrak would have thought of it already.


----------



## railiner (Apr 18, 2021)

jis said:


> Speaking of daytime trains, why do I seldom see mention of Chicago - Denver, which is actually doable?


Probably because western Nebraska and eastern Colorado are best “seen” at night time....


----------



## Willbridge (Apr 19, 2021)

Palmetto said:


> Probably to avoid a lot of missed connections from trains 4, 6, 8 and 22.


I made it from Train 6 with literally five minutes before the highball. And boy was the guy annoyed who thought he had two seats to NYP for the night. When I had to ask him to move his stuff he did, but...

The ideal single improvement for long-distance service would be a Chicago - Philadelphia train departing Chicago at somewhere between 10:30 and 11:45 p.m. It would have connections from Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Carbondale at least and possibly from future corridor trains. Westbound it would arrive in Chicago at 6:30 a.m. NEC trains in both directions would be available at Philadelphia. And, of course, there were trains in those slots on both the NYC and the Pennsy into the 1960's. This would free up the scheduling of CHI>NYP trains.

Whether Amtrak would have the capability of adding cars when western trains are delayed is a good question, but often the delays are known long before arriving in Chicago.


----------



## Willbridge (Apr 19, 2021)

railiner said:


> Probably because western Nebraska and eastern Colorado are best “seen” at night time....


Of the twice daily intercity buses running the DEN<>OMA segment the overnight bus is consistently most popular.

I've thought about a CHI<>DEN _Daylight _but in today's situation it would have no connections other than commuter trains on each end and the slightest delay would miss the last trips on those lines. The two longest daylight (non-sleeper) streamliners, the _Shasta Daylight _and the IC's _City of New Orleans, _both had specific advantages that the _Denver Daylight _would not have.


----------



## jiml (Apr 19, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> Yes, that's a good point. I like the upside of the Detroit-Toledo possibility. OTOH there is already a tortuous bus route that connects Lansing, Ann Arbor, Dearborn and Detroit to Toledo.... a train from ARB to TOL would shorten the bus connections, there could be one bus trip from Detroit and Dearborn to Ann Arbor, and another from Lansing, maybe including Battle Creek... by the time you get to Kzoo you might as well connect in Chicago. Seems like this would encourage feeder traffic to the coast.... then again if my ideas had any merit someone at Amtrak would have thought of it already.


I'd be interested to see a spreadsheet of passenger numbers for the Detroit area stations, broken down by specific train times. It's been a few years since our last Michigan trip, but before that there was some experience to draw on and passenger services there have always fascinated me. Skipping International trips to focus on the lower corridor, it always seemed like the suburban Detroit stations had way more traffic than downtown, except for Pontiac (crickets). This was particularly true of Ann Arbor, with lengthy stops for (I assume) college kids - in both directions. It has me wondering if you're onto something - if one daily frequency to/from Chicago was diverted at Ann Arbor to Toledo would the gain be greater than the losses east of there? It would be an interesting study. (Obviously another separate train would be even better.)


----------



## jiml (Apr 19, 2021)

Willbridge said:


> The ideal single improvement for long-distance service would be a Chicago - Philadelphia train departing Chicago at somewhere between 10:30 and 11:45 p.m. It would have connections from Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Carbondale at least and possibly from future corridor trains. Westbound it would arrive in Chicago at 6:30 a.m. NEC trains in both directions would be available at Philadelphia. And, of course, there were trains in those slots on both the NYC and the Pennsy into the 1960's. This would free up the scheduling of CHI>NYP trains.
> 
> Whether Amtrak would have the capability of adding cars when western trains are delayed is a good question, but often the delays are known long before arriving in Chicago.


Now if only a similar-routed train had run in the past to provide a template.  All it would need is a catchy name.


----------



## jis (Apr 19, 2021)

Another daylight train candidate is Los Angeles - (Phoenix/Maricopa) - Tucson, although as with all other routes across the vast mountain west, the number of riders available may be an issue.


----------



## Palmetto (Apr 19, 2021)

jiml said:


> Now if only a similar-routed train had run in the past to provide a template.  All it would need is a catchy name.



Amtrak ran one of those several years ago for awhile, but dropped it. The time frame escapes me now.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 19, 2021)

jiml said:


> 'd be interested to see a spreadsheet of passenger numbers for the Detroit area stations, broken down by specific train times. It's been a few years since our last Michigan trip, but before that there was some experience to draw on and passenger services there have always fascinated me. Skipping International trips to focus on the lower corridor, it always seemed like the suburban Detroit stations had way more traffic than downtown, except for Pontiac (crickets). This was particularly true of Ann Arbor, with lengthy stops for (I assume) college kids - in both directions. It has me wondering if you're onto something - if one daily frequency to/from Chicago was diverted at Ann Arbor to Toledo would the gain be greater than the losses east of there? It would be an interesting study. (Obviously another separate train would be even better.)



This isn't data, of course, just my observations pre-pandemic, but yes Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo are heavy boarding stations, lots of students at both. Over the last 20 years, boardings have increased at all Michigan stops, the Detroit station is also very busy, and as you said, Pontiac not so much. Battle Creek used to be a fairly quiet stop and now has evolved into a mini-hub, they do crew changes there. All 3 Wolverine departures in both directions are (were) generally full, so, as long as I'm dreaming, the dream is to add a train to TOL... but then I don't know what they would do with the corridor equipment once it got there. Market research would be needed to know how much travel demand there would be for an overnight train originating in SE Michigan to WAS/NYP, with flights only taking 1.5 hours. My theory is such a market exists, simply because you see this in other markets where people are booking LD trains instead of short flights... the experience I have had with TOL is that the Michigan bus is primarily composed of passengers connecting to the Cap. Once 30 leaves, around midnight, the waiting area has only a few people left waiting for 48 LSL - 3 am is not a very desirable boarding time. The fare savings was a definite plus, but I will now pay more, take the Wolverine west to Chicago and connect there instead, as opposed to a 2 hour bus ride followed by 5 hours in the TOL station, delightful as the place is. That last wasn't sarcasm, I actually think it's a cool place, just that the middle of the night experience is something where the novelty wears off.... Thanks for indulging my dreaming... I'll stop now


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 19, 2021)

I've never understood why the Wolverine's continue on to Pontiac from Dearborn to be honest. Yes I understand that Oakland County has a large swath of riders and that Pontiac is in the dead center of the county but it still doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be honest. The train isn't time competitive between Pontiac and Ann Arbor mostly because of the slow routing across Detroit the only advantage is avoiding traffic at that point. 

I think a better end point would either be Toledo or Toronto. I would even say you could extend one train all the way up to Saginaw and Bay City via Flint so you can keep the city pairs in Pontiac. But to me Pontiac has always made more sense as a commuter train than any actual inter-city rail service. 

I actually love the Toledo station as well a very interesting place. I've actually done the LSL from there east and it is rather late and an even more interesting place in the middle of the night.


----------



## hlcteacher (Apr 19, 2021)

i have never had a problem with the late night schedule through cleveland; somebody has to have service at night


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 19, 2021)

hlcteacher said:


> i have never had a problem with the late night schedule through cleveland; somebody has to have service at night



Agreed, but Amtrak stations in the Cleveland area suck, and are very dangerous. If you're a guy, its probably not so bad, but otherwise definitely need someone waiting with you.

If the stations were better, and there was a daytime train, I have a feeling Ohio would be a big railroad state. Talk about day-trains. CLE - Columbus, CLE - Cincinnati, CLE - Buffalo, just to name a few. I could envision a Brightline level resurrection of Inter-city rail in Ohio with the major hub being Cleveland.

Image if Union Tower Terminal in downtown were still in use, and could connect you to the light rail/city center easily. We'd probably see passenger numbers much closer to NEC stations.

All of this short-sited de-railing (pun intended) of train infrastructure years ago really hurt us.


----------



## jiml (Apr 19, 2021)

hlcteacher said:


> somebody has to have service at night


Your statement is accurate, with the qualifier added "if there is only one train on that route". (I realize there are technically two, but in both cases Cleveland is an afterthought.) There is no excuse for there not being a day train to/from somewhere, and hopefully that will be rectified sooner than later. I've been stuck on I-90 east of Cleveland often enough to think that taking a train from Buffalo for a ballgame might be a good thing - and that's just one example.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 19, 2021)

So the Ann Arbor Railroad has apparently been acquired by different freight operators, over the years, and used as a freight line today by company called "Watco." The track does indeed run from Ann Arbor in a straight line south to Toledo. Some day perhaps Amtrak will purchase these 50 odd miles of track and add a daily corridor service that would open up new possibilities for Michigan-Ohio travel.









Ann Arbor Railroad (AA) - Watco


Discover the Difference




www.watco.com


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 19, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Agreed, but Amtrak stations in the Cleveland area suck, and are very dangerous. If you're a guy, its probably not so bad, but otherwise definitely need someone waiting with you.
> 
> If the stations were better, and there was a daytime train, I have a feeling Ohio would be a big railroad state. Talk about day-trains. CLE - Columbus, CLE - Cincinnati, CLE - Buffalo, just to name a few. I could envision a Brightline level resurrection of Inter-city rail in Ohio with the major hub being Cleveland.
> 
> ...



Ohio and Indiana are both really interesting states with a lot of potential to be railroad states. You have a large population that is just dense enough to give you some interesting routings. Just a short list of routes that would make sense in Ohio and Indiana 

Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville

Cleveland-Indianapolis-St. Louis 

Detroit-Toledo-Cincinnati-Louisville

Detroit-Fort Wayne-LaFayette-St. Louis

However I do think that Cleveland routes will be the larger of the routes ridership wise. 

Back in the 1950s you had several Cleveland-New York trains and Cleveland-Chicago/St. Louis trains.


----------



## bms (Apr 20, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> So the Ann Arbor Railroad has apparently been acquired by different freight operators, over the years, and used as a freight line today by company called "Watco." The track does indeed run from Ann Arbor in a straight line south to Toledo. Some day perhaps Amtrak will purchase these 50 odd miles of track and add a daily corridor service that would open up new possibilities for Michigan-Ohio travel.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



There's also this Ann Arbor to Traverse City project: A2TC Rail Project | Groundwork Center

They claim there will be a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City by 2025, hope it happens.


----------



## sttom (Apr 20, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I always wondered why Chicago - Denver wasn't a more utilized market. Amtrak 5 has a great overnight service.
> If only they could manage to electrify that corridor. Its very straight, and speeds could probably get high enough to have a HrSR service.


 
Under the current schedule, it takes about 18 hours to go from Chicago to Denver. That would be rough for an end to end trip during the day. It would make more sense as a Nightjet service with Chicago - Omaha day service along the old Rock Island route and a daytime Omaha - Denver run. Running more daytime trains like the Palmetto is a good idea, but you need to take run time into account. The Palmetto’s 12 hour run time is a bit rough for an end to end haul, 18 would be abysmal. For example to have a 10pm arrival time in Denver, you’re looking at a 4am departure time in Chicago. Even at highway speeds, it’s still about 15 hours.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Apr 20, 2021)

bms said:


> There's also this Ann Arbor to Traverse City project: A2TC Rail Project | Groundwork Center
> 
> They claim there will be a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City by 2025, hope it happens.



I believe they are running a demonstration train on that route. I've been in talks with the operator about staffing it.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 20, 2021)

sttom said:


> Under the current schedule, it takes about 18 hours to go from Chicago to Denver. That would be rough for an end to end trip during the day. It would make more sense as a Nightjet service with Chicago - Omaha day service along the old Rock Island route and a daytime Omaha - Denver run. Running more daytime trains like the Palmetto is a good idea, but you need to take run time into account. The Palmetto’s 12 hour run time is a bit rough for an end to end haul, 18 would be abysmal. For example to have a 10pm arrival time in Denver, you’re looking at a 4am departure time in Chicago. Even at highway speeds, it’s still about 15 hours.



This theoretical run that I surmised would only be viable if there were upgraded, electrified, tracks as to allow for HrSR service, as I wrote.


----------



## Michigan Mom (Apr 21, 2021)

bms said:


> There's also this Ann Arbor to Traverse City project: A2TC Rail Project | Groundwork Center
> 
> They claim there will be a train from Ann Arbor to Traverse City by 2025, hope it happens.



This is amazing! Embarrassed to say I didn't know this was in the works. The website says that track repairs were completed in 2019, so that answered the first question I had - they will use existing tracks. What it doesn't answer is why will it take another 4 years to begin service.
I was trying to trace the endpoint of the Ann Arbor RR tracks on the Apple "find my" app, looks like the tracks end just north of Owosso, which is east of Lansing/EL. In the process, I saw there are many more tracks in existence around MI that may be in use, or not. It was kind of fascinating. This country has missed so many opportunities for infrastructure development.


----------



## bms (Apr 21, 2021)

Michigan Mom said:


> This is amazing! Embarrassed to say I didn't know this was in the works. The website says that track repairs were completed in 2019, so that answered the first question I had - they will use existing tracks. What it doesn't answer is why will it take another 4 years to begin service.
> I was trying to trace the endpoint of the Ann Arbor RR tracks on the Apple "find my" app, looks like the tracks end just north of Owosso, which is east of Lansing/EL. In the process, I saw there are many more tracks in existence around MI that may be in use, or not. It was kind of fascinating. This country has missed so many opportunities for infrastructure development.



Here's a map from the State. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MI_Rail_Map_553909_7.pdf

Looking at that map, I'm surprised there is no passenger service between Detroit, Lansing, and Grand Rapids. Seems like a no-brainer to link the state capital, it's two biggest cities, and several universities.


----------



## MisterUptempo (Apr 21, 2021)

bms said:


> Here's a map from the State. https://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MI_Rail_Map_553909_7.pdf
> 
> Looking at that map, I'm surprised there is no passenger service between Detroit, Lansing, and Grand Rapids. Seems like a no-brainer to link the state capital, it's two biggest cities, and several universities.


Not for lack of trying, though. The Michigan Coast-to-Coast service has been seriously considered. Here's a link to a 2016 study.


Coast-to-Coast has the potential of being transformational for other Michigan service as well.

If route option 2 were selected, it would connect Howell and Ann Arbor by rail, which was the purpose of WALLY commuter rail. That either makes WALLY more likely of operating or Coast-to-Coast serving as a viable substitute for it.

Also, I envision a new route being created to Grand Rapids. Chicago to South Bend and Elkhart on the NS Chicago Line, turning onto the Grand Elk, making a beeline to Kalamazoo and Grand Rapids. Those four sizable towns (South Bend, Elkhart, Kalamazoo, and Grand Rapids) seem like a natural for a connected rail route. The Pere Marquette would instead continue north from Holland to Muskegon.

Riders on both the new Grand Rapids trains and the Pere Marquette would be able to connect to destinations on both routes via the Coast-to-Coast, between Holland and Grand Rapids.


----------



## Willbridge (Apr 25, 2021)

jiml said:


> Now if only a similar-routed train had run in the past to provide a template.  All it would need is a catchy name.


Well............  ... how about _Three Rivers? _Or back to the classics -- _Pennsylvania Limited _eastbound and the _Manhattan Limited _westbound.


----------



## Johnepants (May 4, 2021)

Seaboard92 said:


> Ohio and Indiana are both really interesting states with a lot of potential to be railroad states. You have a large population that is just dense enough to give you some interesting routings. Just a short list of routes that would make sense in Ohio and Indiana
> 
> Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville
> 
> ...



A good, comprehensive regional corridor plan would be great for a state like Ohio. It’s why I support Amtrak’s plan for new corridor service through Cleveland. I believe a 3C train would have more success and higher ridership if those passengers could make connections that take them elsewhere, and expanded service through NY and PA can accomplish that. 

I agree that the lakefront station would have to go though. While I personally have a soft spot for it, and kinda like boarding a train under the lights of downtown, if you expanded rail service and used Cleveland as a regional hub, the current station would not be able to support it.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (May 29, 2021)

Rasputin said:


> When was the Chicago departure of the Lake Shore moved back to 9:30 p.m? I am guessing that it was about 2005 but I may be way off.



The Three Rivers acted as the cleanup train for its entire existence (1996-2005). Once it got canceled, I assume Amtrak needed the LSL to become the new cleanup train.

50 Years of Amtrak--Three Rivers/Pennsylvanian/Skyline Connection (on-track-on-line.com)


----------



## west point (May 29, 2021)

Amtrak visions has a real problem with stations not meeting needs of the proposal. This is not a complete list but these station are needing anything from interior and external renovations, track layouts, to outright replacements.
1. Maine
2. Springfield, MA
3. Buffalo
4. Richmond - both River and Main Streets
5. Cleveland
6. Pittsburgh
7. Charlotte
8. Atlanta
9. Tampa
10. Montgomery
11. Mobile
12. Indianapolis
13. Cincinnati
14. Houston
15. San Antonia
16. Detroit
17. Every new route stations and end points
18. Phoenix


----------



## jiml (May 29, 2021)

west point said:


> Amtrak visions has a real problem with stations not meeting needs of the proposal. This is not a complete list but these station are needing anything from interior and external renovations, track layouts, to outright replacements.
> 1. Maine
> 2. Springfield, MA
> 3. Buffalo
> ...


Good list. By Buffalo I presume you mean Depew, served by the LSL? The new downtown station next to the ballpark (replacing Exchange St.) opened last fall.


----------



## jis (May 29, 2021)

jiml said:


> Good list. By Buffalo I presume you mean Depew, served by the LSL? The new downtown station next to the ballpark (replacing Exchange St.) opened last fall.


Depew needs to get a configuration like Rochester so that Amtrak trains stopping at Depew do not need to cross voer a main line track ever, and they do not block a main line track while platformed at Depew. That would give CSX an incentive to cooperate in the change like it did at Rochester.

BTW, I think all that Tampa needs is the second platformt rack on the unused face of the new high level platform that was built over the last two years. I doubt it needs much else.


----------

