# $400 Million for Ohio Amtrak CLE-CIN



## Railroad Bill

Not sure if anyone had mentioned this but news conference announced that Ohio would receive $400 million in transportation stimulus monies to build the Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati corridor. Expected opening date is 2012?

Everyone who loves trains is still in a cloud but opposition is loud as well. Now where it will end up in Columbus is a question? Hope it will stop in Shelby or Crestline making it an easy ride for those of us in North Central Ohio. Reported it will not be a "high speed line" but with regular Amtrak locos at 69mph or close to it. 

Some in Cleveland said it would be much quicker to take I-71 to Columbus than the expected 3 hour trip to Columbus on Amtrak. For me, what a nice leisurely ride in the countryside :lol:

And going to a Reds game on the train. Havent done that since 1970s. :lol:

Looks like the long awaited corridor train may become a reality. 

Railroad Bill. Planning the next Amtrak adventure!!


----------



## D.P. Roberts

Planning for the Tri-C corridor was allegedly well under way before the stimulus announcement, which makes me wonder how firm those plans were. Personally, I'm not going to believe any of it until I'm actually on a train.

I'm also concerned - as others have mentioned - about how this Tri-C corridor will connect to the rest of the nation. Lots of passengers would want to connect in Cleveland in order to get to Chicago or New York / DC, but as of now that connection has to happen at two or three in the morning. If any Amtrak trains ran through Cleveland during daylight hours I'd be a lot more excited.

As for Columbus - I've heard that the basement of the Convention Center is the most likely location for an Amtrak station. It was allegedly built with "punch outs" in the walls in case anyone wanted to build a train station there again, as it had previously been the site of several other train stations.


----------



## Rob_C

Good news.

I can see Talgo drooling already.


----------



## Railroad Bill

Further information reveals the train may have two stops in Cincinnati, one at Sharonville in north suburbs and at Lunken Airport along the river. Sure would like to see it stop at CUT --closer to downtown and the stadium. 

Also Cleveland stop would be at W. 150th St rapid station.

Thought there was talk of stopping somewhere in north central Ohio but now that is in question. If we have to drive to Columbus or Cleveland to get on, well, that is not as great an idea and those millions of passengers along the corridor would be limited to the four cities it plans to stop in.

I too, will believe it when I see it. With all the freight traffic that CSX has on the Big Four line, it could be a slow ride between CLE and Columbus. :huh:


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Save the drool Rob, the Talgo option has been discussed and dismissed. They'll likely be using bi-levels, perhaps even tacking on to the existing order.


----------



## Rob_C

That's a relief!


----------



## AlanB

Since this was part of the High Speed Stimulus allocations, even though it's technically not high speed, I'm going to move this over to the new High Speed forum.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

79mph is still faster than the pax trains between CIN and CLE are currently running Alan,


----------



## AlanB

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> 79mph is still faster than the pax trains between CIN and CLE are currently running Alan,


Agreed. 

I wasn't making a judgement, just explaining my reasons for moving it.


----------



## Kentuckian

A daily Cardinal would be a good thing. Although it passes through Cincy in the middle of the night, as do the Lake Shore and Capitol in Cleveland. Daytime, daily connecting trains at both ends would go a long way towards making the 3C corridor successful.


----------



## jphjaxfl

Trains from the 3C's corridor should connect with existing Amtrak trains in both Cleveland and Cincinnati. Even in the last days of Penn Central coach only Columbus-Cleveland and Indianapolis-Cleveland, there was a decent connection with Penn Central Trains to the east. On New Years eve 1970, I traveled from Columbus to Cleveland and changed at Union Terminal to the no name train to Boston. Penn Central still ran a train between Cincinnati and Columbus but it was the former Pennsy's Cincinnati Limited which carried a through coach for Pittsburgh and New York. This train connected with the Columbus-Cleveland train in one direction but not in the other. At the time I was trying to ride as many trains and routes as possible that we knew wouldn't be around after Amtrak Day on May 1, 1971. It will be good to have trains on the Big Four's Cincinnati-Cleveland line again.


----------



## stntylr

jphjaxfl said:


> Trains from the 3C's corridor should connect with existing Amtrak trains in both Cleveland and Cincinnati. Even in the last days of Penn Central coach only Columbus-Cleveland and Indianapolis-Cleveland, there was a decent connection with Penn Central Trains to the east. On New Years eve 1970, I traveled from Columbus to Cleveland and changed at Union Terminal to the no name train to Boston. Penn Central still ran a train between Cincinnati and Columbus but it was the former Pennsy's Cincinnati Limited which carried a through coach for Pittsburgh and New York. This train connected with the Columbus-Cleveland train in one direction but not in the other. At the time I was trying to ride as many trains and routes as possible that we knew wouldn't be around after Amtrak Day on May 1, 1971. It will be good to have trains on the Big Four's Cincinnati-Cleveland line again.


The problem is Amtrak only stops in Cleveland in the middle of the night.


----------



## jis

I think an ideal situation would be to figure out a way to connect up the Empire Corridor with the 3C Corridor by either extending a few Empire Corridor trains to Cleveland or extending a few 3C Corridor trains to Buffalo Depew or some combo thereof. This of course will require extra equipment over and above what will be necessary to run the basic Corridor services, so might take a while.


----------



## mikeacken

I agree with those who feel it is mistake to skip Cincinnati Union Terminal. The arguments for the new location are its proximity to downtown and the freight congestion if the route to CUT was taken.

While the new location may be a bit closer, CUT was designed to connect to the city transit system, and it has plenty of capacity to do that. In fact I believe it was originally designed to have the street car system extended to it. Isn't Cinci talking about reviving a streetcar line? Rebuilding the line around Cinci to get to the new location would be expensive.

Freight congestion is an issue, but if Ohio was serious about getting a corridor service started, they would negotiate with CSX, much as Florida did. While the mainline would have to continue to handle freight certainly a relocation of the Intermodal facility (which would be difficult to expand in its current location) and its switch lead through CUT would free up a great deal of capacity.


----------



## battalion51

Part of the challenge with upgrading existing freight lines that it increases the appraised value of the line, which means higher property taxes. You have to either follow the Florida model and purchase the line from the owner and then do your own thing since it's publicly owned and allow the previous freight owner trackage rights, or create rules that will cap the property values of the line at their current level plus inflation adjustment.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Both of which would have drastically raised the cost of the Tri-C project and delayed/derailed its inception.

The best thing IMHO of this project is the cost, a mere 400M to provide pax service along 258 miles of track that is currently unused for said service.


----------



## AAARGH!

Micah and Railroad Bill:

Let's make a date... We (and anyone else who wants to) should plan on taking the first southbound Tri-C train.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Why not Northbound


----------



## DaveKCMO

Railroad Bill said:


> Some in Cleveland said it would be much quicker to take I-71 to Columbus than the expected 3 hour trip to Columbus on Amtrak. For me, what a nice leisurely ride in the countryside.


those people would probably still drive even if the train were faster. our twice-daily missouri trains make the KCY-STL trip in 5:40, while driving takes around 4 hours between city centers, and we still get over 150K riders annually between two metros of about 2 million each. ohio's trains will be fine!


----------



## AAARGH!

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> Why not Northbound


Fine, you drive me to Cincy and I will take the first one Northbound! I'll wave at you along I-71. :lol: :unsure: 

Of course we could just take the CL or LSL to Chicago, and then the Cardinal to Cincy. THEN take the Tri-C back to Cleveland. Hmmmm, come to thnk of it, that's not a bad idea at all!


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

jis said:


> I think an ideal situation would be to figure out a way to connect up the Empire Corridor with the 3C Corridor by either extending a few Empire Corridor trains to Cleveland or extending a few 3C Corridor trains to Buffalo Depew or some combo thereof. This of course will require extra equipment over and above what will be necessary to run the basic Corridor services, so might take a while.


What calling times did you have in mind?

The Lake Shore Limited takes roughly 12 hours to get between New York City and Cleveland. It seems to me that the only way to have a train serve the 3Cs and NYP at reasonable calling times by extending an existing Empire Service run is going to extend a train that currently terminates at ALB to continue all the way to Cincinnati via Buffalo and Cleveland, and will require sleeping cars, a diner, etc. (241/257 departing NYP at 7:10/7:20 PM seem likely candidates; the departure slot before that at 5:20/5:45 might also work, except that the Ethan Allen Express uses it on Friday; and the eastbound train might arrive at NYP 7:35/8:35/8:45 AM as 230/250/232; this all assumes that things haven't changed since the two year old timetable I'm looking at.)

It's probably also possible to have a Cincinnati to Syracuse or maybe even Cincinnati to ALB day train.

Will CSX welcome an additional ALB-Cleveland round trip?


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

Another thing to think about: Cincinnati to St Louis via Indianapolis is about 350 highway miles. A train averaging 50 MPH would cover that in about 7 hours. (I have no idea what the condition of track along that route west of Indianapolis is, whether any railroad owning track along that route would want to tolerate an Amtrak round trip or two each day, etc.)

If Cleveland to Cincinnati takes 6 hours, and if a train departs Cleveland at 6 AM and Cincinnati at noon and then averages 50 MPH getting to St Louis, it should arrive at St Louis around 7:00 PM. The Texas Eagle heading south is scheduled to get to St Louis a little after that (7:21 PM in my two year old timetable). Northbound, the Texas Eagle is supposed to reach St Louis at 8:30, so if a train were timed to meet the Texas Eagle and head east, it might depart St Louis around 9:00 AM, reach Cincinnati around 4:00 PM, and Cleveland around 10:00 PM. (Yes, a 21 minute connection is probably too tight, but there are ways of making the Ohio connecting train run faster, or scheduling the Texas Eagle a little later, to deal with that.)

The City of New Orleans is scheduled to be at Effingham at 11:37 PM southbound, and 4:57 AM northbound. Those times are not the ideal times to make connections, but that would provide a workable connection to Ohio with the connecting train described in the previous paragraph without going through Chicago. And having a through coach and a through sleeper transferred between the City of New Orleans and the Ohio train could make the connection more convenient.

Connecting Ohio to the Southwest Chief in Kansas City (10:11 PM westbound, 7:45 AM eastbound) looks like it is probably doable, but would require an overnight train between Kansas City and Ohio (and might be best done by splitting/combining the Southwest Chief in Kansas City). St Louis to Kansas City is 5:40 currently; if we assume adding 7 hours to that for the 350 miles from St Louis to Cincinnati is about right, that's roughly 13 hours total, so the westbound schedule might be something like 3:00 PM Cleveland, 9:00 PM Cincinnati, and the eastbound schedule something like 9:00 AM Cincinnati, 3:00 PM Cleveland. It might be possible to continue this Ohio section of the Southwest Chief to Pittsburgh, which might have some value if the goal is to get federal funding for this train, to encourage Pennsylvania to vote for it.


----------



## jis

Joel N. Weber II said:


> It's probably also possible to have a Cincinnati to Syracuse or maybe even Cincinnati to ALB day train.
> Will CSX welcome an additional ALB-Cleveland round trip?


I was thinking more along the CIN - ALB daylight sort of train serving intermediate stations for local travel. Although an NYP - CIN LD train would be very nice too, but that would serve a different purpose IMHO.

I visualize the linkage to be more viable after NY State has managed to get the third track in place on the water level route, and managed to up the speed on the route to 110 - 125mph. At current speeds the viability is marginal at best and of course without additional track capacity CSX will throw a hissy-fit in all likelihood anyways.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

jis said:


> I visualize the linkage to be more viable after NY State has managed to get the third track in place on the water level route, and managed to up the speed on the route to 110 - 125mph. At current speeds the viability is marginal at best and of course without additional track capacity CSX will throw a hissy-fit in all likelihood anyways.


At the rate the fourth platform track at ALB has been progressing, I predict that the 220 MPH railroad from Los Angeles to San Francisco will be operational before there is both a third track and 125 MPH running on the water level route, at which point maybe they'll decide that they'd be better off just building a new 220 MPH or faster double track railroad in upstate New York.

Also, Cincinnati to Cleveland to Erie (possibly to Buffalo?) to Niagara Falls to Toronto would probably have a reasonable running time as a day train, although again, I'm not sure about the track capacity issues.


----------



## AAARGH!

Yesterday (2/15/2010), I-71 was closed just north of Columbus. I had two friends trapped in Columbus and they had to take a room overnight.

I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.

Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.

Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?


----------



## Bob Dylan

AAARGH! said:


> Yesterday (2/15/2010),
> I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.
> 
> Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.
> 
> Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?


Sounds appropriate since the Buckeyes are limited! How about the Longhorn Express! :lol: (Sorry about the snow, Spring will be there in about three months! :lol: ) All kidding aside glad yall are getting a train, were still barely limping along here in the Lone Star State! :angry:


----------



## AAARGH!

jimhudson said:


> AAARGH! said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yesterday (2/15/2010),
> I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.
> 
> Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.
> 
> Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds appropriate since the Buckeyes are limited! How about the Longhorn Express! :lol: (Sorry about the snow, Spring will be there in about three months! :lol: ) All kidding aside glad yall are getting a train, were still barely limping along here in the Lone Star State! :angry:
Click to expand...

Here is another - the Buckeye Blured. That's because when it runs from north to south, it runs from a *Blu*e state to a *red* state!


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Joel N. Weber II said:


> The City of New Orleans is scheduled to be at Effingham at 11:37 PM southbound, and 4:57 AM northbound.


But what if I don't want any ****** ham?


----------



## NEW RIVER GEORGE

If the concept is an eventual high speed rail loop including Chicago, Indy, Cinci, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo and in-between points, it makes no sense to not have at least twice daily connections between the new Ohio train at both end points.

My opinion is that this is the falacy of "state trains" that involve no interoperability across state borders. All it takes is one anti-rail state like Indiana to sabotage the whole plan. What would have happened if the interstate highway system had been built that way, with big gaps across economically challenged and backward poltically states? Actually, the way the I-highway system jump-started started was to connect the toll roads that the big rich liberal states already were building. The feds provided the national standards and 90% of the money to the rest.

So do you put a slow puddle jumper on between Cleveland Columbus and Cincinnati at times nobody needs to use it, hope an interstate grid will fall into place on top of it someday, or is it just better to have dedicated rush hour commuter operations at both ends and forget about the middle??

Either way, I would say 2012 is optimistic for any trains to run in Ohio, but I am all for it anyway.

Go Buckeyes!


----------



## rrdude

AAARGH! said:


> Yesterday (2/15/2010), I-71 was closed just north of Columbus. I had two friends trapped in Columbus and they had to take a room overnight.
> I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.
> 
> Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.
> 
> Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?


Or the Woody Hayes Express?


----------



## saxman

Looks like some Ohio Republican are trying to put a stop to this train before it even gets started. I guess they consider the stimulus money coming has strings attached. Definitely a concern in a way, because Ohio will have to foot to operating bill at $17 million a year. Nevermind the fact that $17 million is less than 1% of Ohio budget for transportation. I wonder if having a projected ridership of 500,000 per year would offset that amount by less maintenance costs for the highways and less accidents to clean up for having that many less cars on the I-71.

Anyways, here's the article:



> Despite Federal Investment, Ohio 3C Corridor Under Threat from State Republicansby Yonah Freemark | February 19th, 2010
> 
> Filed Under Amtrak | High-Speed Rail | Ohio
> 
> » Republicans on state board could overrule use of funds for new rail service between Cincinnati and Cleveland.
> 
> Of the corridors receiving multi-million dollar grants from the federal government last month for improved rail service, Ohio’s 3C line arguably provides the most bang for the buck. By 2012, at a cost of $400 million, the state will be able to reactivate passenger operations between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, via Dayton — a service that’s been out of commission for decades. It will provide the first trains to the state capital since 1977.


Rest of the article


----------



## rile42

After the $400 million the Feds have given the state of Ohio to start the 3-C corridor, it is not a for sure thing. All kinds of misinformation and rumors have swirled around regarding the service. Now it might come down to a committee where a "super majority" is needed to get the bill to go forward out of the legislature. A story in the local paper explains it and can be found at http://www.newarkadvocate.com/article/2010...-train-proposal. If you do go to the page look at the comments. Ridiculous.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer

Voters won't stand for it... Ohio is cash-desperate, if the Feds are handing them a $400 million check then the GOP is asking for trouble if they're letting $17 million get in the way.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II

What would it take for a Cleveland to Detroit via Toledo train to become operational?


----------



## AlanB

Joel N. Weber II said:


> What would it take for a Cleveland to Detroit via Toledo train to become operational?


Money and an agreement with the host RR's.


----------

