# LSL Michigan Reroute Rumors & Speculation



## PerRock (Jul 19, 2016)

Disclaimer this is atleast 3rd hand information now...

Discussion on railroadfan.com is talking about the Lake Shore Limited being permanently rerouted thru Michigan. The current plans are for the LSL running on the Michigan Line starting in Oct. and running for a month.

Beyond that known information there is a bunch of speculation, including station stops, schedule, etc.

Peter


----------



## tim49424 (Jul 19, 2016)

PerRock said:


> Disclaimer this is atleast 3rd hand information now...
> 
> Discussion on railroadfan.com is talking about the Lake Shore Limited being permanently rerouted thru Michigan. The current plans are for the LSL running on the Michigan Line starting in Oct. and running for a month.
> 
> ...


Someone had mentioned it in a comment on the LSL Facebook page as well. I'm curious about the details of when in October this will take place as I'm riding from Boston to Chicago on the 10th.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

Has anyone traced the origin of this to any credible source yet?

I am curious about whether it will take place at all.


----------



## CCC1007 (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> Has anyone traced the origin of this to any credible source yet?
> 
> I am curious about whether it will take place at all.


I'm sending you a link on FB messager...


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

Yup. I will wait for a reliable source.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

How far into Michigan does the proposed route go before branching off of the Wolverine?


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> How far into Michigan does the proposed route go before branching off of the Wolverine?


Most like it would join the Wolverine route at Dearborn.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > How far into Michigan does the proposed route go before branching off of the Wolverine?
> ...


I don't think this is the most effective way to serve Michigan for 3 reasons:

1. It bypasses Detroit

2. It would serve Eastern Michigan at overnight hours, especially eastbound.

3. It adds about 2.5 hours to runtime.

I think a more effective solution is a Wolverine backing into Detroit and continuing to Toledo. If possible, thru cars could be added at Toledo.

Proposed Schedule:

Chicago 4:15 PM

Detroit 9:45 PM

Arrive Toledo 11:15 PM

CL Departs 11:49 PM

LSL Departs 3:20 AM

CL Arrives 5:08 AM

LSL Arrives 5:55 AM

Depart Toledo 7:00 AM

Detroit 8:30 AM

Chicago 2 PM

If thru cars were operated, I think they should be on the CL, keeping it on time Westbound and giving it a shorter runtime eastbound. It would also allow better connections at WAS.


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 19, 2016)

I've now heard four different versions of something involving Michigan. I suspect that we have a massive game of telephone on our hands. I love brainstorming ideas as much as anyone, but wake me up when an official announcement is made, please.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 19, 2016)

I think there should be access from Michigan to the NEC better than what exists now (Thruway Bus). Connecting from Michigan to Toledo will eliminate the bus so that's a start. I'd say the thru cars to one of the two trains would be better to avoid late night transfers in Toledo. Don't forget Amtrak owns the Michigan branch and can run faster as opposed to running between Porter and Toledo (of course it is a longer distance).


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 19, 2016)

If the goal is to service Detroit/Dearborn, wouldn't re-routing thru Canada make more sense? Though, that would eliminate Erie and Cleveland.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jul 19, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


Detroit isn't as big of a traffic generator as you might think. It's only the fifth busiest Amtrak station in Michigan, and is far outpaced by Kalamazoo and Ann Arbor, both of which would be served under this proposal. I would suggest that under this yet-to-be-verified proposal, you could serve Detroit with a Thruway bus connection in Dearborn, and then have that bus run up to Pontiac.

As far as the overnight hours issue, unless you're suggesting an entirely new train under a radically different schedule, that's going to be a fact of life for any kind of Michigan-to-the-east reroute.

I wouldn't be too sure about adding 2.5 hours to the runtime. I doubt this idea would gain much traction if it resulted in a huge time penalty for thru passengers.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I think there should be access from Michigan to the NEC better than what exists now (Thruway Bus). Connecting from Michigan to Toledo will eliminate the bus so that's a start. I'd say the thru cars to one of the two trains would be better to avoid late night transfers in Toledo. Don't forget Amtrak owns the Michigan branch and can run faster as opposed to running between Porter and Toledo (of course it is a longer distance).


I agree it is important we improve NE to Michigan service, especially considering that there is only a 60 mile gap. It is possible the time could be less then my estimate, I was just going off of the current schedules which is 4 hours CHI-TOL and 5 hours 15 minutes CHI-Dearborn. I estimated about an hour Dearborn-TOL plus 30 minutes if it detoured to serve Detroit. I also think ridership would be improved with thru cars, I am just not familiar enough with TOL to know if that is possible. I also don't know how they would operate the LSL or CL with the train being split in both ALB/PGH and TOL.


----------



## afigg (Jul 19, 2016)

fairviewroad said:


> I wouldn't be too sure about adding 2.5 hours to the runtime. I doubt this idea would gain much traction if it resulted in a huge time penalty for thru passengers.


A revised route through Michigan would add at least 1.5 to 2 hours to the LSL trip. But only after the upgrades in Michigan are completed and realistically only if the LSL does not stop in Detroit with a slow backup move (which may not be acceptable to the freight railroad anyway).

The track mileage from Chicago to Dearborn is 271 miles and to Detroit 281 miles. The current CHI to Toledo route is 234 track miles. Figure roughly 60 to 65 miles for Toledo to Dearborn, but also over likely class III track at best. So CHI to Dearborn to Toledo is roughly 336 miles or about 100 miles more than the current route. So there is a considerable extra distance in re-routing through Michigan regardless of trip time.

Re-routing either the LSL or CL through Michigan is a valid idea. However I think it would only make sense to do so AFTER all the current track projects in MI and IN are completed on the western end and on the Empire corridor in NY. Get the entire 230 mile segment in Michigan up to 110 mph, implement the hour reduction in Wolverine trip times and see how well the MI trains stay on schedule. Get the upgrades done on the Empire corridor and tighten up the LSL and Empire/ML schedules first and see how the OTP holds up. That is not going to happen by October, so my reaction is that the rumor mill is getting well ahead of any such big change to the LSL.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 19, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


As a resident of Michigan, I would much rather board the LSL during the overnight hours than board a Wolverine and then board the LSL. It means more rest/sleep and isn't quite the pain in the butt that it is to either transfer in Toledo or backtrack to Chicago.

"Bypassing Detroit" made me laugh, but not in a critical way. Ann Arbor is #1 in ridership, with Kalamazoo at a very close #2. Dearborn is #3. If you look at this map, you'll see that Dearborn is only several miles from Detroit. If I'm on the highway, it takes me about 5-10 minutes to get from the Dearborn exits to the Detroit exits.




(I forgot to include the map scale. Just trust me.  )

So, really, "bypassing Detroit" isn't a big deal at all. The majority of "Detroit's" population lives in the metro area, not the city itself. Detroit's population is approx. 689,000. The metro area is 3.5 _million_. Detroit isn't like Chicago and other large cities where the largest chunk of the population resides in the city itself.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> If the goal is to service Detroit/Dearborn, wouldn't re-routing thru Canada make more sense? Though, that would eliminate Erie and Cleveland.


No. Because that will immediately add four hours for two border crossings in this day and age. Any through running through Canada is out even if the necessary tracks actually still existed.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 19, 2016)

I'll just re-mention the proposed All Aboard Ohio train but it certainly serves two purposes that I think would really benefit Amtrak and potential passengers in those states. Then you can just leave the LSL as is.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

See section 3.6 on page 47 of the _Lake Shore Limited PIP._



> _3.6 Initiatives Examined but Not Included in the Plan_
> 
> Amtrak conducted a ridership, financial and schedule analysis of a possible reroute of the _Lake Shore Limited_ over the route of the _Wolverine _service between Chicago and Dearborn, Michigan.
> 
> While this reroute would have provided direct rail service between Michigan cities and the Northeast, it would also have eliminated_ Lake Shore Limited _service at a number of stops in Indiana and Ohio, and trip time and operating costs would increase due to the longer distance traveled. The financial analysis indicated that the reroute would worsen the financial performance of the train.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> See section 3.6 on page 47 of the _Lake Shore Limited PIP._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Why do you have to come in here and depress me with your facts and citations?


----------



## ToniCounter (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> See section 3.6 on page 47 of the _Lake Shore Limited PIP._
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was amused that the words Amtrak and financial analysis belong in the same sentence?


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

Apparently strange things amuse you


----------



## CHamilton (Jul 19, 2016)

I'm scratching my head as to why this "Whatever-It-Is Limited" seems to be popping up now. And I've heard enough different variants from separate sources to be cautiously convinced that something is happening, although the details are obviously unclear.

So here's my theory as to the factors that are coming together:


The new Viewliner diners and sleepers won't be showing up any time soon.
Beech Grove has let it be known that they can't maintain the Heritage diners through another winter.
Michigan is pushing Amtrak to pay them back for all the work they've done.
The new pre-packaged meals are being received well enough to convince Amtrak that they can run more eastern LD trains with diner-lite equipment and staffing, thus stretching their equipment roster and making Mica happi(er).
Boardman is looking for a legacy.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> See section 3.6 on page 47 of the _Lake Shore Limited PIP._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That was 2011. Since then Amtrak purchased the Wolverine route (http://www.battlecreekenquirer.com/story/news/local/2015/07/29/track-fixes-allow-mph-amtrak-travel-bc/30842183/). I would consider that a big factor that would at least change their financial analysis compared to when it was done.



SarahZ said:


> Why do you have to come in here and depress me with your facts and citations?


I thought that was his job. I think we should nickname him "Mr. Cold Water".


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

SarahZ said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


1. If Michigan cars are operated as thru cars onto the CL/LSL at Toledo, you could sleep through it.

2. I realize Detroit is not the most important city in Michigan for Amtrak, but serving it would still be a huge advantage. Amtrak is a form of public transportation, so not everyone onboard has a car and can drive the last few miles. I think Detroit will have higher ridership once the streetcar opens.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 19, 2016)

tim49424 said:


> PerRock said:
> 
> 
> > Disclaimer this is atleast 3rd hand information now...
> ...


My source, implies that it will be the whole month. So you would be in MI, if it happens.

peter


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

Amtrak has not purchased the Wolverine route. State of Michigan has. That is a huge difference since at least financially, at present there is no love lost between MichDOT and Amtrak, from what I have been hearing.

but of course we will see soon enough what will or will not happen, won't we? I was just providing any known related material that is available. Of course it is Boardman that pretty much laid off the entire PIP team. And BTW, if Boardman's disregard for the findings of that team is true, Philly, that does not bode well at all for the through train or cars from Philly to Chicago. So be very careful what you wish for. 

An occasional dose of reality is good for people who seem to lose track of it often. 

Anyway, to realize this sort of a change, I surmise that the LSL will have to leave New York at around 1pm instead of 3pm, if not a bit earlier, to preserve the Western connections in Chicago. Similarly, it will need to depart Chicago a couple of hours earlier in order for the Boston section to get to Boston at a reasonable hour, and to preserve the few connections still possible at New York, specially allowing for the regular hour or two delays. Other than that, I only see WTI and BYN losing one train and direct connection to New York State. Folks from SOB and EKH can always use NLS which is a short drive, to catch the rerouted LSL.

And I agree with Sarah. Not hitting DET is no big deal. Too much hassle for too little return to bother with it.

If it happens in October, I will get to ride the new route on the way to the AU Gathering too!


----------



## tim49424 (Jul 19, 2016)

PerRock said:


> tim49424 said:
> 
> 
> > PerRock said:
> ...


The key word is if, just from reading the rest of this thread. I'm convinced to be skeptical and like Charlie, I'll believe it's actually happening once an official announcement has been made.


----------



## saxman (Jul 19, 2016)

Someone told me the track from DER to TOL is only 40 mph. Can anyone confirm?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

I just searched Facebook for this, and it states it is possible it will be operated as a branch of off the LSL, splitting at TOL. In this case, the schedule could be kept the same. Assuming the branch went to Chicago, it would have to leave around 7 PM and could arrive 12:30 PM. This operation would be similar to the proposed FEC routing in Florida, with a direct train to Miami and another slower section that also eventually ends up in Miami. I am curious how they would do this, with the train already being split in Boston. Also, if the train were to be completely rerouted via Michigan, would the CL begin stopping at Bryan?


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

The simplest way to do it would be to split it at the same point in the train where the New York and Boston sections are joined, and send one of them via Dearborn. There really is not other simple way of doing it at ll. I would surmise that the New York section would go via Dearborn and the Boston section on the original route.

Yeah, if the whole train goes via Dearborn then CL will definitely get a stop at Bryan. That is a no brainer to maintain service at Bryan.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 19, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> 2. I realize Detroit is not the most important city in Michigan for Amtrak, but serving it would still be a huge advantage. Amtrak is a form of public transportation, so not everyone onboard has a car and can drive the last few miles. I think Detroit will have higher ridership once the streetcar opens.


Those who do not drive can still catch any of the Wolverines to/from Dearborn. It's not like Detroit would lose Amtrak service in general.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> See section 3.6 on page 47 of the _Lake Shore Limited PIP._
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, what piqued my interest in the thread, was that exact service. Better, direct, much needed, connection between the Detroit area and the Northeast.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 19, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I thought that was his job. I think we should nickname him "Mr. Cold Water".


I know, reality sucks, doesn't it.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

jis said:


> The simplest way to do it would be to split it at the same point in the train where the New York and Boston sections are joined, and send one of them via Dearborn. There really is not other simple way of doing it at ll. I would surmise that the New York section would go via Dearborn and the Boston section on the original route.
> 
> Yeah, if the whole train goes via Dearborn then CL will definitely get a stop at Bryan. That is a no brainer to maintain service at Bryan.


Why doesn't the CL stop in Bryan already? I think if both stopped the CL would get higher ridership at Bryan given the hours and connections.

If the train was split back into the NYP and BOS sections, would people have one ticket as now and just be forced to change cars at some point? It would probably make sense to do this at ALB, as TOL is during overnight hours.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

Yeah, probably doing the shuffle in ALB would be better than doing it in TOL.Specially after the track work and platform construction is completed ALB will be better equipped to handle such.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 19, 2016)

This all sounds a bit off. Amtrak is going to reroute an LD train as a test for only a month? What would that prove? You get people excited about a new service and then snatch it away before people can even make plans and reservations? I don't think so.

IF such a reroute is practical, it would have to wait for the completion of Michigan's upgrade of the Kalamazoo-Detroit line to 110 mph. I doubt if that work will be completed by October. Give it two or three more years.

Of course, Dearborn to Toledo would have to be on a current freight-only route that would be good for 40 mph at the best.

I don't think current passengers traveling east of Toledo would be amused by an additional two hours or more added to the already lengthy schedule, which is seldom met to begin with. They don't call it the Late Shore Limited for no good reason.

A much more practical approach would be to reroute a Wolverine (after two or three RT's are added to the schedule) from Dearborn to Toledo to make connections. Heck, you could even throw in a through sleeper and coach for that matter. (Of course that would mean CAF would actually have to complete the sleeper order in our lifetimes.)

There's also no need for a time-consuming back up to the Detroit station. The Dearborn station will be fine. People in Detroit know how to get to Dearborn.

There's no way the LSL would be routed through Canada. You would miss Cleveland and Toledo, for Pete's sake; a through route from Buffalo to Detroit through Ontario no longer exists; and customs and border procedures would eat up four hours. Gone are the days when you could just stroll into Canada with a minimum of fuss.

This is some railfan's pipe dream.


----------



## jis (Jul 19, 2016)

It may just be an elaborate hoax so that we can add eight or more pages of discussion to this thread  I am skeptical until I hear about it from a source slightly more reliable than the current mostly unreliable one. But still it is fun to discuss the pros and cons of something that can actually be done with currently available resources, as opposed to the spectacular vaporware that is usually discussed around here.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Jul 19, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> If the goal is to service Detroit/Dearborn, wouldn't re-routing thru Canada make more sense? Though, that would eliminate Erie and Cleveland.





MikefromCrete said:


> There's no way the LSL would be routed through Canada. You would miss Cleveland and Toledo, for Pete's sake; a through route from Buffalo to Detroit through Ontario no longer exists; and customs and border procedures would eat up four hours. Gone are the days when you could just stroll into Canada with a minimum of fuss.
> 
> This is some railfan's pipe dream.


I didn't think it was worst possible question. :unsure:

First, I had thought that the Capital Limited could still give service to Cleveland and Toledo from the NE and Chicago. I didn't realize that part of this proposal was to kill off the CL? Second, I wasn't aware that its now impossible for _any_ Amtrak train to "stroll" into Canada anymore. Would anything change if there were no stops in Canada?

What track does Via's Toronto to Windsor service run on?


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 19, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> ...


I personally don't like that, because that basically eliminates connections with the EB, SWC, and CZ (not enough time by 15 min) (min connection time 2:30)


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 19, 2016)

norfolkwesternhenry said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I proposed that as a branch off of the current route, with the same schedule as now on the same route. I believe the Wolverine also has a morning train that makes connections at CHI. Also, there are connections between LD trains under 2:30.


----------



## afigg (Jul 19, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> This all sounds a bit off. Amtrak is going to reroute an LD train as a test for only a month? What would that prove? You get people excited about a new service and then snatch it away before people can even make plans and reservations? I don't think so.
> 
> IF such a reroute is practical, it would have to wait for the completion of Michigan's upgrade of the Kalamazoo-Detroit line to 110 mph. I doubt if that work will be completed by October. Give it two or three more years.
> 
> Of course, Dearborn to Toledo would have to be on a current freight-only route that would be good for 40 mph at the best.


The bulk of the funding Michigan received for the corridor was stimulus funds, so the work is supposed to be completed by June 2017 so the FRA can pay the invoices by the end of September 2017 deadline. MI did get $150 million in FY2010 funds, but that was mostly to pay for purchasing the 135 miles of track, which the state has done. So the 110 mph upgrades in MI should be completed by no later than mid-2017, not in 2 or 3 years. The Indiana Gateway projects were supposed to be completed in 2016, but 7 of the 8 projects apply to the LSL and CL regardless of whether the LSL is re-routed through MI.

That noted, as I posted earlier in this thread, this October is too soon for a rerouted LSL to take full advantage of the MI track upgrades. The double tracking between SDY and ALB and the track & platform upgrades at ALB may be done by this September; they have been working on ALB long enough. If the IN Gateway and Empire corridor improvements are in place by October, perhaps what might actually be the plan for the LSL this fall is to finally implement the proposed CHI departure time flip with the CL. The eastbound LSL could depart CHI circa 7 to 7:30 PM and the CL would be shifted to a later departure. Perhaps someone heard about the proposed earlier departure and thought it was so that the LSL could go through Michigan and keep its current NY Empire corridor times.

We will have to wait and see what happens. Amtrak should have a new CEO by October, so plans could get changed by the new boss.


----------



## railiner (Jul 19, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > If the goal is to service Detroit/Dearborn, wouldn't re-routing thru Canada make more sense? Though, that would eliminate Erie and Cleveland.
> ...


VIA uses CN trackage. There is no easy way to get from VIA's Windsor station to the railroad tunnel to Detroit. The old Canada Southern RR, line (NYC/PC/Conrail subsidiary), that Amtrak's 'Niagara Rainbow', and 'Empire State Express' used to run over, is mostly gone as well.

Whether running "closed doors" across Canada, would be acceptable, is a good question....they would probably have to have a Canadian border officer ride from border to border to insure no one got on or off enroute..


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 19, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> This all sounds a bit off. Amtrak is going to reroute an LD train as a test for only a month? What would that prove? You get people excited about a new service and then snatch it away before people can even make plans and reservations? I don't think so.
> 
> IF such a reroute is practical, it would have to wait for the completion of Michigan's upgrade of the Kalamazoo-Detroit line to 110 mph. I doubt if that work will be completed by October. Give it two or three more years.
> 
> ...


would there be a possibility of the train not stopping? Also, how much would a rehabilitation of Buffalo-Detroit cost? If you did not stop the train in Canada, you could get by with a minnimum of customs, or use the cascades system, which is customs in Vancouver, only adding time to international passengers, while keepeing domestic passengers free of customs


----------



## A Voice (Jul 20, 2016)

According to a post on Trainorders, the Michigan detour for the _Lake Shore Limited_ is account Norfolk Southern trackwork.


----------



## west point (Jul 20, 2016)

IMHO the best way to connect to the LSL is a car on the end of 354 &353 that connects at Durand. Use either a DMU or just a car ( once equipment is available ) pulled by a 500 series loco. Up grade one of the 4 tracks that parallel for passenger speeds and get the freight RRs to agree to use the other 3 ?


----------



## railiner (Jul 20, 2016)

Now that sounds like the logical reason for the detour....trackwork


----------



## norfolkwesternhenry (Jul 20, 2016)

if you put a car on the end of a wolverine, how would you get to the cafe car? There is an engine on each end, also, no dining car untill Toledo?


----------



## jis (Jul 20, 2016)

So now we know the speeds on the proposed detour from a post on trainorders....

3 miles at 10mph, and the rest between Toledo and Dearborn at 50mph or less, with zero funding for fixing anything in sight.

Glad that it is just a temporary thing.

Amtrak is apparently trying to convince Michigan to pay for part of it by offering to stop at Michigan stations. Michigan has first right of refusal, which they probably will. Amtrak of course could still stop in Michigan, but we'll see what happens.


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Jul 20, 2016)

I live in the Detroit suburbs currently and I'm originally from the Chicago area (lived in the Chicago area most of my life), so perhaps my perspective is a bit biased. A couple noteworthy items though. The Detroit Metropolitan area is the #2 most populated metro area in the entire Midwest (moreso than Minneapolis, yes). It is the 12th largest CSA (Combined Statistical Area) in the USA with an estimated population of 5,319,913 as of the year 2015.

Furthermore, the University of Michigan (in Ann Arbor) attracts more students from the NYC metro area than most other Big 10 universities in the Midwest. There should be a market for this service IMO.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 20, 2016)

A Voice said:


> According to a post on Trainorders, the Michigan detour for the _Lake Shore Limited_ is account Norfolk Southern trackwork.


OK, so this isn't some kind of test of a Michigan detour, just a detour for track work. That makes some more sense. I doubt if there will be any intermediate stops. Too complicated to set up fares and sell tickets for something that temporary.


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 20, 2016)

So where is this alleged trackwork/detour, and why isn't the Capital Limited affected?


----------



## fairviewroad (Jul 20, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> A Voice said:
> 
> 
> > According to a post on Trainorders, the Michigan detour for the _Lake Shore Limited_ is account Norfolk Southern trackwork.
> ...


I agree, it would be very surprising if Amtrak's reservations system could handle ticketing for a short-term detour. I mean, in theory it _could_ but it seems more likely that the train will simply run non-stop (save for any sort of crew change) on the detour route. Sort of like when the Coast Starlight detours through central California.

I wonder why only the LSL has to be detoured and not the Cap?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Jul 20, 2016)

JoeBas said:


> So where is this alleged trackwork/detour, and why isn't the Capital Limited affected?


If it's night work, maybe they expect the CL to get through the area before/after the track work.


----------



## west point (Jul 20, 2016)

Stopping the LSL at the Deaborn > west will give MI DOT some way to guage what a late train both ways could allow. Fares ? easy enough on wolverine stops west and probably easy to get for Toledo stations and east. Just use the thru way fares and thru way can terminate at Durand instead of going to Toledo ? Schedule might be a problem ?

Michigan certainly could advertise the service ?

EDITED out Durand which was a brain F***


----------



## Amtrak288 (Jul 20, 2016)

A few have mentioned routing through Canada, portions of that line do still exist however in Niagara Falls, Ontario, the line was torn up years ago to build one of those nice big places where you can make a short-term investment at a roulette table! Also, past that casino, the line ran by the Clifton Hill area until it eventually turned east again and crossed the Niagara River north of the falls back into the U.S. The bridge is still there but now there likely would be no way to put that line back in around the Fallsview Casino. The right of way near Clifton Hill now is just a big walking path.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 20, 2016)

A Detroit to Buffalo train could use VIA rail tracks to Hamilton amd then turn southeast on Maple Leaf tracks to Niagara Falls. However, I would prefer if this was operated as a new route (possibly an extended Empire Service) and the LSL continued to serve Toledo, Cleveland, and Erie.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jul 20, 2016)

jis said:


> So now we know the speeds on the proposed detour from a post on trainorders....


Darn, and here I was thinking that this was some sort of pre-planned Amish plot in North Central Indiana to destroy train bridges (they needed to plan in advance via letter as they don't use cell phones or e-mail) - it can't be stopped for religious reasons and they are needed for the vote in November. AU has already been infiltrated by bandits from Michigan wearing bandanas to keep us guessing...


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 20, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> A Detroit to Buffalo train could use VIA rail tracks to Hamilton amd then turn southeast on Maple Leaf tracks to Niagara Falls. However, I would prefer if this was operated as a new route (possibly an extended Empire Service) and the LSL continued to serve Toledo, Cleveland, and Erie.


You expect United States taxpayers to pay for a train through a foreign country? Good luck getting that past Rep. Mica and his cohorts.


----------



## A Voice (Jul 20, 2016)

Back in the days of the 'express business' of the late 90's an extension of an Empire Service train across Canada to Chicago was actually proposed. Of course, like nearly all of the 'express' driven expansions, it never happened.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jul 20, 2016)

railiner said:


> Cho Cho Charlie said:
> 
> 
> > Cho Cho Charlie said:
> ...


Okay, assume a sealed train through Canada. Good luck getting CN to accept it where there is no statutory clout at all for access.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 20, 2016)

west point said:


> Stopping the LSL at the Durand > west will give MI DOT some way to guage what a late train both ways could allow. Fares ? easy enough on wolverine stops west and probably easy to get for Toledo stations and east. Just use the thru way fares and thru way can terminate at Durand instead of going to Toledo ? Schedule might be a problem ?
> 
> Michigan certainly could advertise the service ?


Why would it stop, or even pass by Durand? The LSL will be running on the Michigan Line, which is further south then Durand (thru Jackson, Ann Arbor, Dearborn). If they wanted to do a test stop Ann Arbor makes much more sense, especially as it's the largest (or 2nd largest, I don't have current numbers) stop in MI.

peter


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 20, 2016)

Ann Arbor is #1, with Kalamazoo at a very close #2.

(Source: MDOT website, which I don't have linked on my phone)


----------



## fairviewroad (Jul 20, 2016)

SarahZ said:


> Ann Arbor is #1, with Kalamazoo at a very close #2.
> 
> (Source: MDOT website, which I don't have linked on my phone)


In FY15, Ann Arbor had 143,130 and Kalamazoo had 117,997. You can see the station-by-station breakdown at this link. 

Note that thanks to the _Blue Water_, Kalamazoo has an additional daily train departure in each direction, so from a "per departure" standpoint, Ann Arbor far outpaces Kalamazoo (though each has a very respectable total).


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 20, 2016)

fairviewroad said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Ann Arbor is #1, with Kalamazoo at a very close #2.
> ...


That's a fair and valid point that I'm ashamed I overlooked. I was looking at the numbers for "Michigan Services", not the Wolverine.


----------



## west point (Jul 20, 2016)

Cannot speak for others but until my Atlanta gets all 5 proposed trains will strongly oppose any Canadian train. Now if it would cost nothing to the Government, Amtrak, any state or local government not rob equipment from other trains, Maybe ? Wonder what persons in other underserved area would feel about Canadian route before their own needs ?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 20, 2016)

west point said:


> Cannot speak for others but until my Atlanta gets all 5 proposed trains will strongly oppose any Canadian train. Now if it would cost nothing to the Government, Amtrak, any state or local government not rob equipment from other trains, Maybe ? Wonder what persons in other underserved area would feel about Canadian route before their own needs ?


I agree that other routes should take priority, I was just stated that the tracks do exist and a route through Canada would be possible. What if Michigan and New York decided to fund it?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 20, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> west point said:
> 
> 
> > Cannot speak for others but until my Atlanta gets all 5 proposed trains will strongly oppose any Canadian train. Now if it would cost nothing to the Government, Amtrak, any state or local government not rob equipment from other trains, Maybe ? Wonder what persons in other underserved area would feel about Canadian route before their own needs ?
> ...


Why would these two states fund a train that operates through a foreign country? I'm sure Michigan residents wanting a train serving Traverse City or New York residents wanting additional Empire Service would have a thing or two to say about this. What's this fascination about running an Amtrak train through Southern Ontario? That's VIA's job --- and they've got a long list of places that deserve service before a train connecting Niagara FAlls and Windsor.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 20, 2016)

Yeah, I don't know. When I drive east, I often cut across Canada because it's faster. Before the passport/EDL laws, the majority of Michiganders did the same thing. Now, it might be more of a mixed bag.

Anyway, if we're talking going by train, I'd much rather see the funds go toward connecting Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Detroit or even my big wish list item of a train that continues onward from Grand Rapids up to Traverse City (or even all the way to Mackinaw City) than a train that runs across Canada and doesn't even stop.

Now, if we're taking about bringing the International Limited back, sign me up.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 20, 2016)

SarahZ said:


> Yeah, I don't know. When I drive east, I often cut across Canada because it's faster. Before the passport/EDL laws, the majority of Michiganders did the same thing. Now, it might be more of a mixed bag.
> 
> Anyway, if we're talking going by train, I'd much rather see the funds go toward connecting Grand Rapids, Lansing, and Detroit or even my big wish list item of a train that continues onward from Grand Rapids up to Traverse City (or even all the way to Mackinaw City) than a train that runs across Canada and doesn't even stop.
> 
> Now, if we're taking about bringing the International Limited back, sign me up.


I agree that there is more pressing needs, but eventually if the priorities get done I see no reason this is not possible. What if the International Limited is rebuilt and is combined with the Maple Leaf to operate as one train?


----------



## railiner (Jul 20, 2016)

Haven't checked the connecting times recently...but a determined person can travel from Buffalo to Windsor transferring at Aldershot.....


----------



## afigg (Jul 21, 2016)

SarahZ said:


> Now, if we're taking about bringing the International Limited back, sign me up.


The subject of a Chicago - Ann Arbor - Windsor - Toronto service has been included as a possible future route that is being "studied" in Amtrak presentations to the Transportation Border Working Group. Here is the Amtrak presentation from March, 2015 (10 page PDF slide set) that has the route on a map and a brief mention of the possible service. It would not be a full restoration of the International as it would be over a different route though MI and Ontario.

How serious the study or proposal is for a Chicago - Ann Arbor - Windsor - Toronto service is, don't know. It would likely have significant start-up costs in border & custom inspection facilities and presumably would require subsidy funding from Michigan and VIA. Also don't know if the rail tunnel from Detroit to Windsor is suitable for passenger trains without spending mucho $. Given how many years it is taking to add a Customs facility in Montreal for the Adirondack and Vermonter extension, restoring Chicago - Toronto service is likely be discussed for years by Amtrak, VIA, and umpteen state & federal agencies with no real progress.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 21, 2016)

afigg said:


> SarahZ said:
> 
> 
> > Now, if we're taking about bringing the International Limited back, sign me up.
> ...


Dream killer.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 21, 2016)

This has been confirmed by multiple sources, including sources in Chicago and conductors and employees. It is a test program. Hopefully it goes well.

Apparently, Michigan was pushing hard for a Long Distance Train in Michigan.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 21, 2016)

So confused. Test or reroute due to MOW conflict?

Test you can ask for compensation.

Maintance you get to complain.

Not that really matters, but it would be nice if the needs of the passengers are considered if this is a test. Hate to miss my connection due to a test.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 21, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So confused. Test or reroute due to MOW conflict?
> 
> Test you can ask for compensation.
> 
> ...


The run time is actually supposed to be less than TOL-CHI via Chicago line due to less traffic and 110 mph. Without the heritage diners, they can go 110 with no issues.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 21, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > So confused. Test or reroute due to MOW conflict?
> ...


I don't know how that is possible. Trains are scheduled between Chicago and Toledo in 4 hours, while Chicago to Dearborn is 5 hours 15 minutes plus at least an hour from there to Toledo. I think this an important market, but splitting the train in Toledo is a better solution than delaying the entire train by that much time.


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > The run time is actually supposed to be less than TOL-CHI via Chicago line due to less traffic and 110 mph. Without the heritage diners, they can go 110 with no issues.
> ...


Using the new Flux Capacitors installed in the P42s to be used on the diversion of course 

However what Tyler quotes may not be his fault. The garbage may be emanating from Amtrak (well 6 hours, not 4) which even the union fellow in Toledo questions.



TylerP42 said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > So confused. Test or reroute due to MOW conflict?
> ...


Total disconnection from reality. But that is not unusual. 

Toledo to Dearborn is some 60 or so miles. 3 of that is covered at 10mph due to track condition. The rest at 50, so count 1:15 to 1:30 (account for slow speed running out of Toledo) for that.

Chicago to Dearborn is around 4:55 - 5:15 taken straight from the timetable.

Which on the best day gives a total runtime of 4:55 - 5:15 + 1:15 - 1:30 a running time of about 7:10 - 7:45.for Chicago to Toledo via Dearborn.

Eliminate a few stops in Michigan and possibly reduce runtime from Chicago to Dearborn to say 4:30 to get net runtime down to 6:45.

Runtime on NS from Toledo to Chicago is 4:20 - 4:30.

Now explain to us how the runtime between Chicago and Dearborn of 4:55 - 5:15 is shorter than the Chicago - Toledo time of 4:20 - 4:30, leaving aside the fact that the Chicago - Toledo via Dearborn running time will be something like 6:45 to 7:45.

The thing is, all of the few miles of 110mph cannot compensate for the sheer difference in distances:

Chiacgo - Dearborn : 273 miles

Chicago Toledo via SOB 229 miles

Chicago Toledo via Dearborn about 333 miles

Too bad that people are unable to do simple arithmetic anymore. 

BTW, AFAIK the serviceable Heritage Diners have no issue with running at 110mph.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 21, 2016)

I was told it would be under the 5 hour mark for the engineers/crew.


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> I was told it would be under the 5 hour mark for the engineers/crew.


As I said - there has to be a flux capacitor involved there 

If they use a single crew they will need two Engineers in the cab.

Of course Toledo to Dearborn crew would be well under the 5 hour mark. But then there would be a Dearborn to Chicago crew which will be slightly over the five hour mark.

Moral of the story - do not believe everything that anyone says. Validate the claims yourself. It is a safe assumption that no one is powerful enough to change the laws of Physics on the fly (McFly?)

BTW, it raises another interesting question. I am sure they are not going to send an ITCS equipped engine all the way to Albany. So I suspect they will tack on an ITCS locomotive in front of the regular P42 for the Chicago - Dearborn stretch, and take it off/put it on at Dearborn, or possibly at Toledo.

Should be interesting to see what happens.

I expect to be on 49 in October on the way to the AU Gathering. Taylor, perhaps you should get yourself on the 49 too, to enjoy this jaunt through Michigan.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 21, 2016)

You can always skip some stops on the LD train through Michigan to cut some time. It won't be less than going through South Bend but if it is less than 2 hours I'd consider the reroute. I'd probably make the Michigan stops only to eastern destinations so the Michigan stops will only receive passengers going east and only discharge going west and can leave before departure time.

This is All Aboard Ohio's proposal: http://allaboardohio.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Keystone-Wolverine_linkup.pdf


----------



## rrdude (Jul 21, 2016)

From a FB post earlier today, in Amtrak Fans group. It _seems_ to be written by a supervisor, to their employees, no way to authenticate, so "take it as is" Somewhat jibes with some of what is written above.

My biggest questions are. (if there is _any_ truth to the story) :


Is it because of TRACK WORK on NS ? (Makes some sense)
Is it a "Test" independent of TRACK WORK on NS?
Did Amtrak decide to TEST *because* of TRACK WORK? (That would be a win for Amtrak Mgmt)
IMHO, it would make sense to "TEST" only:


Once all track work in Michigan is done
Once all track work east in ALB-SDY is done
Only if sell tickets to/from online Michigan stations. (otherwise, it's just a detour)
_Amtrak is running the Lake Shore with one unit as it is--I can't see it sparing another one for a split section. Here's what engineers in the Toledo Crew Base are being told by their union:

I received a phone call on July 13, 2016 from **** to inform me of upcoming changes to 49/48 service. Effective October 1, 2016 the carrier will implement a pilot program to operate 49/48 from Toledo to Chicago over the Michigan line. The pilot program will last until October 31, 2016 and at that point they will decide if the pilot program was successful and could implement this change as permanent. With that said the new route will depart Toledo and use the Detroit Line to CP-YD, then route over the Junction Yard Running Track to the Michigan Line at CP-Townline and continue to CP-482 at Porter. They plan on this being a one engineer job because of the 110 MPH and the running time is under 6 hours according to their figures but I will need to monitor this because I believe the running time is over the 6 hour rule. This has been being pushed by the State of Michigan who has wanted a long distance train through Michigan and has been talked about for several years and the State of Michigan has pumped a considerable amount of State funds to keep passenger rail alive in Michigan .

The current jobs will not change except for the change in the route, schedule may change if the pilot program is successful. The carrier plans on the train being staffed by Toledo crews and the crews will need to get qualified over the new route and will need to get CN, NORAC, and ITCS Cab Signal Rules. The schedule and who will start qualifying will be up to **** who will be working with **** to get a plan in place to schedule crews for the rules and qualifying. Currently this is in its infancy and they will need to work out all of the logistics but it will be done quickly, understand this, they intend on this as a being permanent change to the way 49/48 operates and intend on seeing this being a success with or without our help.

I know this is a lot to swallow but we must remain positive. Michigan has an overflow of engineers on their extra boards and they are already qualified over 85% of the route and they could easily qualify them over the remainder of the route and we could potentially lose this work. I ask each of you affected by this to look at the big picture and try to protect our work. I will work with the carrier to make sure everything is in place and that we all have the necessary materials and training prior to the October 1st start up. And yes we will continue to qualify in the yard and this change will only effect the current 49/48 crews and the extra board.


I will continue to give you information as it comes in._


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2016)

Very interesting rrdude. Thanks. I still think someone at 60 Mass is smoking something, which is also not unusual.


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 21, 2016)

I talked to someone in Chicago who's a part of it and he said he was shocked I knew about it so fast and knew so much. It's currently in early planning stages.

They're also training engineers and conductors on those subs.


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2016)

Amtrak leaks like a seive 

So far it sounds like it will be another typical Amtrak CF. But I am hoping that they will work out the kinks before it gets there and eventually it will succeed.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 21, 2016)

Succeed how?

What the goal?

Simple run a train on a different route?

Ridership improvement?

How many customer are going to lose out with a short notice change of routing? If Amtrak plug in a reroute 11 months ahead, that would be great, but the short notice change will impact how many customers?


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 21, 2016)

RRdude touched on a lot of the questions I have.

If they're testing ridership, it doesn't make sense to do it on such short notice, and in October no less. If they advertised this for, say, next spring or summer (or even maybe the holidays), that would be a better test. The key is advertisement. I think people in Michigan would be pumped to have a long-distance train that goes to NYC and Boston, but with little advertising and during a month that's not exactly vacation-heavy... meh.

If they're testing speed, it doesn't makes sense to do it until the construction between KAL and DER is finished.


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2016)

I suspect they are trying to make some sort of lemonade out of some sort of lemon that they have been handed or created for themselves. Not the first time that such has happened. Putting lipstick on a pig is one of the specializations.... We just don't know the whole story and probably never will.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 21, 2016)

I don't think the extra locomotive should be too much of an issue because the Chargers should free up some P42s relatively soon and I imagine that due to its length the LSL should be one of the first to get it's second loco back. Also as previously mentioned it is possible that the extra loco may be removed in Toledo due to Michigan having their own pool of locos with extra requirements.


----------



## jis (Jul 21, 2016)

We are talking October this year. Do we expect Chargers to be deployed in significant numbers by then?

The loco used on the Michigan corridor will have to be ITCS equipped, and the loco used to Albany has to be Eastern Cab Signal equipped. Chargers will release midwest locomotives. It will take a bit of work to equip them with different cab signal systems. All can be done. But I am curious what determined the 1st October date. Haven't found a real explanation for that yet.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 21, 2016)

I think the union leader's comments posted above are sheer fiction. I still don't see the sense in detouring a LD train from a long established route for just a month to conduct a "test." There are other ways to test potential ridership for a reroute. Amtrak never rerouted a SWC over the Southern Transcon to "test" ridership at Amarillo and other points along the way. Amtrak went out of its way to protect business on the traditional SWC route.

A six-hour run with one engineer? Others here have figured out the time will be closer to 7.5 hours, and that's without any possible problems. If they do this, the LSL will be sitting at Niles or Porter everyday waiting for an emergency recrew.

Michigan wants a long distance train? Michigan's priorities are improving the Wolverine to higher speed standards, starting up the "coast to coast" Holland-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train, starting up an Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter line, starting up that other silly commuter line west of Ann Arbor, and maybe, just maybe, sending a train up to Traverse City. What are MDOT's concerns about passengers riding a through train to NYC rather than a bus from Dearborn to Toledo?

The reroute, if there is one, will be due to NS construction.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 21, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Michigan's priorities are improving the Wolverine to higher speed standards, starting up the "coast to coast" Holland-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train, starting up an Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter line, *starting up that other silly commuter line west of Ann Arbor*, and maybe, just maybe, sending a train up to Traverse City.


I couldn't find any news about a commuter line "west" of Ann Arbor. Are you talking about the proposed commuter line between Ann Arbor and Howell, a.k.a. WALLY?


----------



## Burns651 (Jul 21, 2016)

Distance between Dearborn and Toledo is 57 miles via the Junction Yard Secondary and Detroit Line.

Responding to earlier queries about why people wanted a train to go through Canada: it wasn't about serving Canada, it was about finding the most direct way to the East to serve Michigan. Now, probably, Customs and ISIS hysteria have shut down that option for good.


----------



## PaulM (Jul 21, 2016)

I'll go out on a limb and say that the source of this is the CUS janitor, or was it the station manager, who insisted that arriving sleeper car passengers would be kicked out of the metropolitan lounge.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 21, 2016)

SarahZ said:


> MikefromCrete said:
> 
> 
> > Michigan's priorities are improving the Wolverine to higher speed standards, starting up the "coast to coast" Holland-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train, starting up an Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter line, *starting up that other silly commuter line west of Ann Arbor*, and maybe, just maybe, sending a train up to Traverse City.
> ...


----------



## afigg (Jul 21, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> I don't think the extra locomotive should be too much of an issue because the Chargers should free up some P42s relatively soon and I imagine that due to its length the LSL should be one of the first to get it's second loco back. Also as previously mentioned it is possible that the extra loco may be removed in Toledo due to Michigan having their own pool of locos with extra requirements.


The schedule for the SC-44 Charger production as of earlier this year called for the first units to be accepted by IDOT in December 2016. That presumably is based on no major issues being found in the months of testing the first units have to undergo. So, the Chargers won't be in service to free up P-42s for the LSL trial re-route if it takes place in October.


----------



## afigg (Jul 21, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> Michigan wants a long distance train? Michigan's priorities are improving the Wolverine to higher speed standards, starting up the "coast to coast" Holland-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Detroit train, starting up an Ann Arbor-Detroit commuter line, starting up that other silly commuter line west of Ann Arbor, and maybe, just maybe, sending a train up to Traverse City. What are MDOT's concerns about passengers riding a through train to NYC rather than a bus from Dearborn to Toledo?
> 
> The reroute, if there is one, will be due to NS construction.


From Michigan's viewpoint a trial re-route of the LSL through Ann Arbor and Dearborn may either not cost the state anything or likely only a little because it is a national LD train. Michigan gets a 4th daily Chicago to Ann Arbor and Dearborn train out of it. Now, if the new LSL route were to become permanent or planned as a future permanent shift, then the state and Amtrak might submit TIGER applications with some matching state funds for improvements to the Toledo to Dearborn NS tracks.

If it is a one month re-route required for NS track work, selling tickets in Michigan is a good way to see how much interest there is in and build political support for a direct Michigan to east cost service.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jul 21, 2016)

So why is the Capital Limited not getting impacted.

West bound the two trains run one hour apart.

Capital Limited arrives 0845 hrs in Chicago.

Lake Shore Limited arrives 0945 hrs in Chicago.

East bound

Capital Limited leaves Chicago at 1840 hrs.

Lake Shore Limite leaves Chicago at 2130 hrs.

Unless the MOW is working at night, the morning run are right in top of each other. So if one is impacted the other must also be impacted.

Makes no sense.


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Jul 22, 2016)

The more I think about this idea and the fact that the Chicago to Toledo stretch (via Michigan) would be lengthier in distance, I think that there has to be a compromise in the # of stops in Michigan. I'm thinking that the LSL running through Michigan might be able to limit its stops to Kalamazoo, Ann Arbor & Dearborn potentially. But then again, having a stop in Niles, Michigan could help to serve the customers that used to board in South Bend, Indiana. Niles (MI) is about 11 miles north of South Bend (IN). I have personally boarded & deboarded at other stations such as picturesque New Buffalo (gorgeous area in the summer) and the newly revamped Battle Creek station so I'm truly torn.


----------



## neroden (Jul 22, 2016)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> If the goal is to service Detroit/Dearborn, wouldn't re-routing thru Canada make more sense? Though, that would eliminate Erie and Cleveland.


The Canada Southern was ripped out, sadly.


----------



## neroden (Jul 22, 2016)

CHamilton said:


> I'm scratching my head as to why this "Whatever-It-Is Limited" seems to be popping up now. And I've heard enough different variants from separate sources to be cautiously convinced that something is happening, although the details are obviously unclear.
> 
> So here's my theory as to the factors that are coming together:
> 
> ...


Well, I'll just say that the pre-packaged meals apparently have documented ingredients, per Jim Matthews, so with my allergies I am likely to be able to eat them, and the dining car meals currently don't (for no reason which I can imagine), so putting the pre-packaged meals on the LSL would actually help me.
Also, I have friends who routinely go back to visit their familes in Lansing and Grand Rapids. They have taken the bus from Toledo (and found the transfer unpleasant), but their families would probably happily pick them up from Jackson or Kalamazoo, and they'd get to sleep longer.



jis said:


> Anyway, to realize this sort of a change, I surmise that the LSL will have to leave New York at around 1pm instead of 3pm, if not a bit earlier, to preserve the Western connections in Chicago.


Improvement for me in Syracuse heading west -- I get to board earlier in the day (it's really late when we board right now).


> Similarly, it will need to depart Chicago a couple of hours earlier in order for the Boston section to get to Boston at a reasonable hour, and to preserve the few connections still possible at New York, specially allowing for the regular hour or two delays.


Vast improvement which is *already recommended by the PIP*, which said it would increase ridership a lot. It allows me to tuck into bed in the Viewliner earlier!



> Folks from SOB and EKH can always use NLS which is a short drive, to catch the rerouted LSL.


Yep.When we've analyzed this before, the sticking point has always been running times. It's critical that Toledo-Dearborn be done pretty fast, otherwise the detour adds too much delay.



jis said:


> Yeah, if the whole train goes via Dearborn then CL will definitely get a stop at Bryan. That is a no brainer to maintain service at Bryan.


For what it's worth this helps out Amtrak's ADA compliance issues (Bryan is never gonna get a high-level platform) and saves time on double-stopping (the LSL often has to spot twice, sometimes three times, while the shorter CL doesn't). Norfolk Southern might actually be quite happy to move the very long, frequently double-spotting LSL off this part of the Chicago Line and willing to make a good deal for access to the Detroit-Toledo line (which is mostly Conrail) in exchange.

Soooo, apparently the Detroit Line has a 50 mph speed limit (this is fine) but the "Junction Yard Running Track" is 10 mph (this is not fine). From looking at the overhead maps, I don't think the Junction Yard running track gets used that much, so freight traffic *along* it shouldn't be an issue. It does have annoying flat junctions with CN in two places and NS in one, however (not counting the dead-end NS track which looks unusable). It's very curvy but it could be upgraded to reasonable speeds (30 mph) without too much trouble, I'm sure -- I really hope there's some consideration of this since it doesn't cost that much to get up to Class 2 track. If a train could get clearance to cross through CP-YD, the CN Shoreline Sub, NS Ecorse Junction, and the unnamed NS dead-end line all at once (they are all very close together, about 1.6 miles), the only other obstacle is crossing the CN access to Ford's River Rouge complex.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 22, 2016)

Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?

Let's assume +2 hrs for the Michigan reroute.

LSL:

I'd agree with jjs as to leave westbound 2 hours earlier. That would have the train leave BUF around 10pm instead of midnight and as Nate said all of the upstate New York cities see service 2 hours earlier. Westbound I'd probably compromise and have the LSL leave at 8:30pm and arrive in NYP at 7:23pm and BOS at 9:01pm just to reduce the number of missed connections if you moved the LSL to 7:30pm.

CL:

Westbound the train could leave at 2:05pm to maintain the same time. It would cut the transfer time from the SM and Crescent, I don't believe the SS connection from 92 to 29 is guaranteed now anyway. The train would leave PGH two hours earlier (10pm) and would cut the transfer time from the Pennsylvanian in PGH in half  ! This would get the CL to CLE before midnight (the westbound LSL would still arrive in CLE after midnight with the reroute). Eastbound the train can't leave CHI any earlier. That would arrive in PGH at 7:05am. You'd have to move the eastbound Pennsylvanian back to account for it. You could have the train leave PGH at 9am which would get the train into NYP after 6pm so that could free up a rush hour slot in Penn Station. I don't think that would be drastically worse than the current schedule and the two hour wait in PGH would be 7-9am rather than 5-7:30am. The train then arrives in WAS at 3:05pm which cuts the wait time to the southern transfers (even though you lose the CL-SS connection).

Michigan passengers would then get direct access to WAS and can transfer there to southern stops or to the rest of the NEC.

I would probably favor a CL reroute as opposed to a LSL reroute but I'm biased.


----------



## fairviewroad (Jul 22, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> So why is the Capital Limited not getting impacted.
> 
> West bound the two trains run one hour apart.
> 
> ...


There is a scenario under which it makes sense.

Let's say that of the four trains, only the eastbound LSL is affected by the trackwork window. BUT let's say that Amtrak is piggybacking on the trackwork situation in order to genuinely use this is a "test" re-route. In that case, for it to be an effective test, you'd have to reroute the LSL in both directions, even if only the eastbound train is affected by the trackwork.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jul 22, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?
> 
> Let's assume +2 hrs for the Michigan reroute.
> 
> ...


I would prefer the CL-SS connection to be made available in both directions, but if that is not an option than the CL may be a better train for a schedule change. (I am also biased as two of my most common routings are CHI-RGH and CHI-TPA).


----------



## neroden (Jul 22, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?


The addressable market says LSL. There's a lot of Michigan-Upstate NY, Michigan-New England, and Michigan-NYC social connections, due to previous migration patterns. Not as much between Michigan and DC or the South. Dunno why, that's just the way it is.
Anecdote: my two friends who visit Michigan yearly are in upstate NY. Rerouting the CL does *nothing* for them. Think about it. Can you think of someone benefitted substantially by a CL reroute and not by an LSL reroute? They'd have to be going between Michigan and Pittsburgh, I think. Much larger markets from Michigan-upstate NY.

It would be ideal if the trains could be scheduled to allow a transfer in Toledo (so westbound CL arrives before westbound LSL in Toledo, and eastbound LSL arrives before eastbound CL in Toledo), but the one-seat ride from Michigan should be on the LSL.

Or you could reroute both of them. If the Dearborn-Toledo track can be sped up (a serious question) it may make sense to reroute both of them (sorry, Waterloo and Fort Wayne). Waterloo has actually put money into its station, so I think this wouldn't happen. Bryan, Elkhart, and South Bend haven't, and don't seem to care.


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Jul 22, 2016)

neroden said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?
> ...


Exactly. The New York City metropolitan area arguably sends as much or more students to the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor than the Chicagoland area. A one-seat ride from New York City Manhattan Penn Station to Ann Arbor (MI) changes things a bit. That right there provides an interesting market. A market that may be more open to rail than many other folks.


----------



## neroden (Jul 22, 2016)

I read a while back (almost 10 years!) that when people call in to Amtrak asking about travel, and request a city pair which Amtrak *cannot do*, the top requested pair is New York to Detroit. I actually *witnessed* a couple asking about train tickets to Detroit at the Syracuse train station, and upon being told that there was a bus connection they turned their noses up and walked away.

Dearborn is close enough to get a lot of that market. It's big.

'Course this'll mean the LSL needs more coaches


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 22, 2016)

It's clear NYC/NE is more important to Michigan. But don't forget...

1) What's more important to South Bend/Northern Indiana, NYC or DC?

2) Which route would adding 2 hours to be less of a negative?

I'm not saying there is a right answer but there are multiple factors to consider.


----------



## afigg (Jul 22, 2016)

neroden said:


> It would be ideal if the trains could be scheduled to allow a transfer in Toledo (so westbound CL arrives before westbound LSL in Toledo, and eastbound LSL arrives before eastbound CL in Toledo), but the one-seat ride from Michigan should be on the LSL.
> 
> Or you could reroute both of them. If the Dearborn-Toledo track can be sped up (a serious question) it may make sense to reroute both of them (sorry, Waterloo and Fort Wayne). Waterloo has actually put money into its station, so I think this wouldn't happen. Bryan, Elkhart, and South Bend haven't, and don't seem to care.


The route through Michigan adds about 100 miles to the trip. Speeding up the Dearborn to Toledo track can reduce the impact on trip times, but it is not going to make up for the hundred extra miles for through traffic to and from Chicago. With 2 LD trains running fairly close to each other between CHI and Toledo, diverting one of them can work (maybe), but not both.

The LSL currently has a lot of padding in its schedule; the FY2011 PIP report discusses schedule improvements, which I don't recall ever really having been implemented. With the upgrades in Indiana and from SDY through ALB, along with other capacity improvements along the route, Amtrak might be able to reduce the end to end trip time impact on a re-route by trimming trip times on the eastern Empire corridor and on the western end. But I doubt those schedule fixes will be ready to implement in October.

However trip time savings on the eastern Empire corridor are not going help those traveling between Buffalo, Rochester, Erie and Chicago. A re-route through Michigan is going to add at least several hours to the trip. That could hurt business for those city pairs, especially in coach. A re-route through Michigan is a tradeoff, it adds additional markets at the cost of longer trips for other city pairs. OTOH, the additional Michigan markets have 3 to 4 trains a day to Chicago, so those are markets that have remained familiar with passenger train travel, which is a plus. If the re-route happens, we will see how it plays out.


----------



## west point (Jul 22, 2016)

A consideration: The CL and LSL run so close to same schedule that rerouting LSL works well. 2 trains that close together do not serve the stations west of CLE very well. Not considered so far is the ability to get a much earlier arrival in CHI for Michigan riders and / or later departure from CHI. That will give the Michigan riders many more options for they may take LSL one direction and a Wolverine the other.. Since there appears to many potential passengers Michigan east coast then the Michigan - CHI passengers will be a great fill in. Maybe if this is a test then doing it in October which is a lower passenger demand time then there will be available extra car(s) from other routes.

Massaging the schedules of CL and LSL to provide for cross platform connections at Toledo may really become important for Michigan riders. As well the present CL west of TOL could change to LSL for trips to NE. NS might like the idea of one train running on the markers of the other CLE <> TOL ?

A problem at TOL might be the additional personnel needed to service 2 trains at same time.

A third train CHI <> TOL then becomes more feasible on the CL route. Less need for the South of the Lake work.


----------



## pennyk (Jul 22, 2016)

According to NARP's 7/22/16 Hotline, this rerouting is a rumor.



> ... Amtrak can only say that at this point such a routing is very far from reality and is just part of a very high level analysis of options for the future...


More here


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 24, 2016)

pennyk said:


> According to NARP's 7/22/16 Hotline, this rerouting is a rumor.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll go with my sources... I do not believe that amtrak can officially announce that they are going to, since it's still in planning.


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2016)

Tyler, Just wondering if your source still thinks it will take less than four hours and thirty minutes on the route via Dearborn as you initially claimed.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 24, 2016)

jis said:


> Tyler, Just wondering if your source still thinks it will take less than four hours and thirty minutes on the route via Dearborn as you initially claimed.


And is this the same source who insisted the Metropolitan Lounge wouldn't allow sleeper/BC arrivals to use the lounge if they were leaving on a coach ticket?


----------



## MikefromCrete (Jul 24, 2016)

IF this is going to happen. I think October is too soon. This is Amtrak, after all. How long have we been waiting for the switch to be installed at Pittsburgh for through CL-Pennsylvanian cars? Or for delivery of the Viewliner II diners and sleepers? To be successful, it needs the completion of the Michigan higher speed work east of Kalamazoo and the work at Albany station. Two or three years at the earliest.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 24, 2016)

MikefromCrete said:


> How long have we been waiting for the switch to be installed at Pittsburgh for through CL-Pennsylvanian cars?


WAY too long!


----------



## jis (Jul 24, 2016)

I suspect since 2011 or 2012 or so, and the end is not in sight. This one they could start even tomorrow with two Coaches and a Dinette using the modified shunting plan at PGH. They just don't want to bother. That is pretty much it.


----------



## neroden (Jul 24, 2016)

Obviously "October" means October of 2159.


----------



## neroden (Jul 24, 2016)

jis said:


> I suspect since 2011 or 2012 or so, and the end is not in sight. This one they could start even tomorrow with two Coaches and a Dinette using the modified shunting plan at PGH. They just don't want to bother. That is pretty much it.


Deeply irresponsible. It's basically money being left sitting on the table. If there were management in the right place at Amtrak who cared about doing the most with the money they get from Congress, they'd have gotten it done...


----------



## JoeBas (Jul 25, 2016)

Maybe someone at AMTK just likes seeing our resident BL Fluffer foam at the mouth...


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 26, 2016)

I'll take the high road and not be a child about this like some, I choose to believe my multiple sources that have told me, I may have misheard something.


----------



## Ryan (Jul 26, 2016)

By making the comment, you've expressly done the opposite.

The high road would have been to say nothing and let the events that unfold prove out how good your sources are.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 26, 2016)

FWIW, Tyler, passive-aggressive comments are no better than childish comments.

I was simply pointing out that your sources are less than credible, given their past history. (I surmise Jis was too, but I don't want to speak for him.)

Disputing information and its sources is part of an educated, mature conversation. It is not "childish". If you can't handle someone questioning/disputing your sources, I hope you don't plan to go to college or present any kind of study in your workplace.

Welcome to adulthood. It sucks. Grab a helmet.


----------



## jis (Jul 26, 2016)

I was just asking whether given the evidence I presented the source still believes the absurd claim. In response Tyler said he might have misheard his source. So I presume that some of the other disproved claims were also cases of Tyler mishearing and not necessarily the source saying something wrong. That is perfectly fine by me.


----------



## SarahZ (Jul 26, 2016)

jis said:


> I was just asking whether given the evidence I presented the source still believes the absurd claim. In response *Tyler said he might have misheard his source*. So I presume that some of the other disproved claims were also *cases of Tyler mishearing and not necessarily the source saying something wrong*. That is perfectly fine by me.


That makes sense. I misunderstood his latest post.

This is also why I prefer links rather than, "I heard from so-and-so that..." I don't trust the Telephone Game.  But I'm a cynic, so take that with a grain of salt.


----------



## Palmetto (Jul 27, 2016)

I'm late to this party, having been on the road. The following is not quite true:

_Amtrak has not purchased the Wolverine route. State of Michigan has. That is a huge difference......_

Amtrak owns the ROW between Porter and Kalamazoo. East of Kalamazoo belongs to Michigan.


----------



## jis (Jul 27, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> I'm late to this party, having been on the road. The following is not quite true:
> 
> _Amtrak has not purchased the Wolverine route. State of Michigan has. That is a huge difference......_
> 
> Amtrak owns the ROW between Porter and Kalamazoo. East of Kalamazoo belongs to Michigan.


Yup. I thought I did mention that somewhere in this thread. But thanks for clarifying that again. It makes a huge difference indeed, specially depending on how the relationship between Amtrak and MichDOT evolves...


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Jul 27, 2016)

I'll take state of Michigan over a freight company any day of the week. Michigan isn't stopping Amtrak from higher speeds and is less likely to interfere with Amtrak.


----------



## jis (Jul 27, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> I'll take state of Michigan over a freight company any day of the week. Michigan isn't stopping Amtrak from higher speeds and is less likely to interfere with Amtrak.


Of course. However, the context of that comment was that it was implied that because Amtrak owns the line they could run whatever they want on it. That is not true if someone else owns it. They have to give permission and agree on a charge etc. Of course they could decide that the charge is zero and anything can be run. But I would point to the kerfuffle that is going on among MassDOT, Amtrak and the NEC Commission over what MassDOT must pay for MBTA to use the railroad that they own, apparently because both Amtrak and NEC Commission forgot that it is MassDOT that owns the property and not Amtrak, while setting the rates.


----------



## PerRock (Jul 27, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> I'm late to this party, having been on the road. The following is not quite true:
> 
> _Amtrak has not purchased the Wolverine route. State of Michigan has. That is a huge difference......_
> 
> Amtrak owns the ROW between Porter and Kalamazoo. East of Kalamazoo belongs to Michigan.


Technically that's not quite right either. MDOT owns the line from Kalamazoo to about Ypsilanti. Then it's back to the freight lines.

peter


----------



## neroden (Jul 28, 2016)

PerRock said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > I'm late to this party, having been on the road. The following is not quite true:
> ...


That's also incorrect. MDOT owns the line from Kalamazoo all the way through Dearborn to a particular junction just west of Detroit. (CP-Townline, which is the junction with the Junction Yard Branch).


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 30, 2016)

Calling someone a "fluffer-foamer" is rather Childish to say the least.

Anyways, I think this would be a good trial and I think we should see the results of the trial and decide if this looks like a good permanent decision.

I'm always up for "tryouts".


----------



## hessjm (Jul 30, 2016)

I waited until I could check with my source; now you can mark me in the "rumor" is true column.


----------



## neroden (Jul 31, 2016)

Well, in order to make it work, they need to find a way to make decent time from Dearborn to Toledo... I think that's the bottom line. It *should* be possible.


----------



## me_little_me (Jul 31, 2016)

hessjm said:


> I waited until I could check with my source; now you can mark me in the "rumor" is true column.


So when does it start?


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2016)

1st October?


----------



## TylerP42 (Jul 31, 2016)

From what I've heard from tons of sources including sources that work directly with the Lake Shore, it is pretty much a done deal except a few small details. Dearborn to Toledo will still be 50mph. Looks like it'll add on about 3 hrs to the trip between Toledo and Chicago.


----------



## keelhauled (Jul 31, 2016)

If it's true, RIP western connections if they don't shove the schedule ahead on the east end.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> From what I've heard from tons of sources including sources that work directly with the Lake Shore, it is pretty much a done deal except a few small details. Dearborn to Toledo will still be 50mph. Looks like it'll add on about 3 hrs to the trip between Toledo and Chicago.


Thanks! That is consistent with the back of the envelope calculation that I had posted earlier in this thread.


----------



## jis (Jul 31, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> If it's true, RIP western connections if they don't shove the schedule ahead on the east end.


Yep. They will also need to shove the departure from Chicago a couple of hours earlier to ensure that the Boston section gets to its destination earlier than some ungodly hour in the middle of the night.


----------



## jebr (Aug 1, 2016)

Hopefully Amtrak has some good hotel room contracts in Chicago (or moves the CL to play cleanup.)


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 1, 2016)

Could this be the long rumored flip flop with the Cap Ltd. which will become the Cleanup Train in CHI?

What could possibly go wrong with this plan??


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Aug 1, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> From what I've heard from tons of sources including sources that work directly with the Lake Shore, it is pretty much a done deal except a few small details. Dearborn to Toledo will still be 50mph. Looks like it'll add on about 3 hrs to the trip between Toledo and Chicago.


I think being able to take a roomette either way from Metro Detroit to Chicago (and vice versa) might create a supplementary market for this train. Along the obvious play to give these folks (Metro Detroit) a one-seat ride to the East Coast.


----------



## neroden (Aug 1, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> From what I've heard from tons of sources including sources that work directly with the Lake Shore, it is pretty much a done deal except a few small details. Dearborn to Toledo will still be 50mph. Looks like it'll add on about 3 hrs to the trip between Toledo and Chicago.


In this case, the Junction Yard Track becomes the low-hanging fruit. 50 mph for most of the distance from Dearborn to Toledo is actually perfectly respectable, but 10 mph for 3 miles isn't, and takes 18 minutes. Getting that up from 10 mph to 30 mph would cut *12 minutes* off the trip time, and should be relatively inexpensive.

I should certainly hope that this is associated with the "schedule flip" planned way back in the PIP. An earlier depature from Chicago eastbound would be a real improvement, and an earlier departure from upstate NY westbound would also be appreciated. (If they're doing it with the same originating departure times, they're crazy; those are bad depature times, and the opportunity should be taken to change them.)


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 1, 2016)

The main reason for this test is pretty much that Michigan wants a Long Distance Train, and that's pretty much the only reason. Oh. And money.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 1, 2016)

ASM Data (8/1/15-7/31/16):

SWC 4 into CHI

6+ hrs late (9:15pm arrival): 8

5+ hrs late (8:15pm arrival): 12

4.5+ hrs late (7:45pm arrival): 13

4+ hrs late (7:15pm arrival): 20

CZ 6 into CHI

6.5+ hrs late (9:20pm arrival): 9

5.5+ hrs late (8:20pm arrival): 13

5+ hrs late (7:50pm arrival): 15

4.5+ hrs late (7:20pm arrival): 21

I'd probably want to have at least one of CL/LSL leave 8pm or later as there is a big gap between 7:15-7:20pm and 7:45-7:50pm for both trains.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2016)

jebr said:


> Hopefully Amtrak has some good hotel room contracts in Chicago (or moves the CL to play cleanup.)


Lately they appear to have parked two Superliner Sleepers at Union Station, which they are using for housing some of the misconnects.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 1, 2016)

Nice use of equipment. I vote for drop sleepers in Denver.


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 1, 2016)

On a semi-related note: I had heard (from some not so known sources to me) some talk of switching the Capitol Limited to a single level train and possibly dropping off a sleeper and possibly a cafe at Pittsburgh.


----------



## jis (Aug 1, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> On a semi-related note: I had heard (from some not so known sources to me) some talk of switching the Capitol Limited to a single level train and possibly dropping off a sleeper and possibly a cafe at Pittsburgh.


That would be implementation of the CL PIP. The original plan was for the CL to pick up two Coaches, a Amfleet II Dinette and at least one Sleeper from the Pennsy at PGH. Frankly picking up just a Coach or two as a start while we wait for Sleepers even would be a good start.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Aug 1, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> On a semi-related note: I had heard (from some not so known sources to me) some talk of switching the Capitol Limited to a single level train and possibly dropping off a sleeper and possibly a cafe at Pittsburgh.


That idea has been around for years. All it requires (except for the new sleepers) is a switch at the Pittsburgh station, which must be the toughest engineering job of all times since it has never advanced from the proposal stage.


----------



## west point (Aug 1, 2016)

The switch at Pittsburg is one problem. Ideally the LSL will leave earlier; then depart the CL 2 - 3 hours later for cleanup of any late western train(s). The schedule would allow for cross connections in Toledo for the LSL & CL and then a closer connection in Pittsburg for passengers going to stations around PHL. A Single level CL would be ideal but until the additional V-2 sleepers are available and enough coaches yo mak that connection now is a problem ?

Of course there would be the need to make west bound connections at TOL.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 1, 2016)

I wonder how the Capitol Limited serves as a cleanup train if a passenger is destined, let's say, to Buffalo or Erie.


----------



## fairviewroad (Aug 1, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> I wonder how the Capitol Limited serves as a cleanup train if a passenger is destined, let's say, to Buffalo or Erie.


The same way the LSL now serves as a cleanup train for passengers destined for Pittsburgh or Cumberland: It doesn't.

It's not a perfect back-up plan but either train is serviceable for folks ultimately headed to NEC destinations.


----------



## west point (Aug 1, 2016)

If the LSL goes thru Michigan and the CL leaves ~ 3 hours later as a clean up train the NY passengers can transfer at TOL if both trains are scheduled in TOL at the same time.


----------



## Steve4031 (Aug 4, 2016)

If this is going to happen, when would Amtrak release the new schedules?

This would be an interesting ride on 48/49 imho.


----------



## Rincewind (Aug 5, 2016)

As a newbie, how does this change affect the connections? I have a trip booked Nov. the 5th from NY to Chicago and to San Francisco. *Can* it work?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 5, 2016)

Rincewind said:


> As a newbie, how does this change affect the connections? I have a trip booked Nov. the 5th from NY to Chicago and to San Francisco. *Can* it work?


This change is rumor to be only in October. So your travels should not be impacted. Now if your traveling in October well....


----------



## Rincewind (Aug 5, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Rincewind said:
> 
> 
> > As a newbie, how does this change affect the connections? I have a trip booked Nov. the 5th from NY to Chicago and to San Francisco. *Can* it work?
> ...


Nov. was an error, I'm traveling Oct. 5th.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 5, 2016)

It can work. You be arriving about 3 hours later, and should be able to make your change of trains.

However Amtrak is quite good at forgetting the needs of the passenger. So hopeful your booked on one ticket, and not on two independent purchased tickets. The one ticket will make it a Amtrak issue. If you miss the connection.

At this point it's a might be happening, and not a fact. So don't panic, no need to stress. Yet.


----------



## hessjm (Aug 5, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> At this point it's a might be happening, and not a fact. So don't panic, no need to stress. Yet.


The fact is that the LSL will be running through Michigan for the month of October, I verified that in a conversation I had just this morning. I'm trying to find out if it may start prior to October 1 - at this point I don't believe so. I'll follow up when I have more information.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2016)

hessjm said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > At this point it's a might be happening, and not a fact. So don't panic, no need to stress. Yet.
> ...


Have you heard any speculation about what schedule it will run on? Somehow it seems to me that they will have to adjust schedules somewhere or the other. If they wish to keep the schedule the same east of Toledo then turning the consist in Chicago in 6 less hours becomes a herculean task. Or they have to move the schedule east of Toledo at least in one direction.


----------



## rrdude (Aug 5, 2016)

jis said:


> jebr said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully Amtrak has some good hotel room contracts in Chicago (or moves the CL to play cleanup.)
> ...


That is an idea that is so overlong and overdue. Just think of the economies of scale in savings, EVEN WITH a "guard" of some type for dedicated security. EVEN WITH a car attendant, to watch over the interior, and keep shower and bathrooms clean, NOT paying out $$ to hotel, NOT paying $$ transportation to/from station, food voucher is a wash, HAS to be paid either way.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 5, 2016)

If the sleeping cars being parked at CHI is permanent, they could redo the interiors on retired cars and keep them parked at CHI. They could also do this in other connecting cities (WAS, LAX, NYP if capacity is available). If they had enough maybe they could even sell them for people scheduled to connect overnight.


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2016)

They would be hard pressed to find a suitable place to park such cars at NYP. The only real possibility would be the diagonal platform, but they will need to open up public access to it, to be able to use it so.

But since there really are no retired Sleepers available, this is yet another unachievable thing anyway even if free platform space could be found.

As for the Superliners parked in Chicago, the relevant question to ask would be if they are saving more money in hotel and local transport vouchers than they would make if they were actually providing transportation service themselves. I have no idea.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 5, 2016)

What retired cars are you thinking about? The Diners? Ferreals?


----------



## JoeBas (Aug 5, 2016)

Each misconnected passenger gets their very own half booth to sleep on! 

The best part, no more food vouchers... AMTK will just provide fresh ingredients for folks to cook themselves! ^_^


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2016)

Let us get back to LSL in MI. So anyone heard anything about what schedule the modified LSL will run on?


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 5, 2016)

Jis, I think you're being much too demanding!  Imagine: Amtrak publishing info well in advance of a change? Really, now! ^_^

Maybe NARP could nudge them along to be communicative for a change.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Aug 5, 2016)

jis said:


> Let us get back to LSL in MI. So anyone heard anything about what schedule the modified LSL will run on?


TBD and announced Two weeks after the reroute begins! 

Cynical? Moi?


----------



## west point (Aug 5, 2016)

So many possibilities on connecting in CHI. It may be that NY and BOS passengers would be transferred to the Capitol at TOL if LSL is late ?

The wildest idea would be two V-1 sleepers one would start NYP / PHL go to Pittsburg - CL to TOL and transfer to LSL. Other sleeper NYP - ALB - TOL and transfer to capitol. Of course that would depend on CAF getting some V-2 sleepers in service. Maybe in 2017 ?


----------



## tim49424 (Aug 5, 2016)

Bob Dylan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Let us get back to LSL in MI. So anyone heard anything about what schedule the modified LSL will run on?
> ...


I figure that the schedule announcement will be made the day after I return from the east coast on October 11 via the LSL. LOL


----------



## jis (Aug 5, 2016)

I did not ask for an Amtrak announcement. I was wondering if anyone had heard any scuttlebutt. Thanks for the barrage of snark though


----------



## rrdude (Aug 6, 2016)

jis said:


> I did not ask for an Amtrak announcement. I was wondering if anyone had heard any scuttlebutt. Thanks for the barrage of snark though


Hahaha, what do you expect Jis? (I said snark all)


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 7, 2016)

So a question that I have forgotten to ask any of my sources:

What happens to Bryan, OH?


----------



## neroden (Aug 8, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> So a question that I have forgotten to ask any of my sources:
> 
> What happens to Bryan, OH?


One presumes the CL will stop there. Simplifies stopping anyway; the LSL often has to stop twice (or three times in one case I remember) and the CL probably wouldn't.


----------



## afigg (Aug 8, 2016)

neroden said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > So a question that I have forgotten to ask any of my sources:
> ...


Bryan OH had 5,608 passengers either boarding or alighting in FY2015. How many of them traveled to & from Erie and the Empire corridor stops? If this indeed becomes a permanent shift of the LSL, trips to NY state become a problem from Bryan. Same goes, of course, for Waterloo, Elkhart. South Bend IN. I suspect most passengers at those stops are heading toward CHI, but there must be some who travel to NY state.

Even if this is more than a rumor, and is a temporary trial shift for October, got to be some who have booked tickets who may find themselves out of luck when/if Amtrak contacts them only days in advance of their trip. Maybe Amtrak will arrange the CL & LSL schedules for transfers in Toledo or Cleveland, but that could be rather tricky, especially westbound.


----------



## jis (Aug 8, 2016)

Frankly, Elkhart and South bend are no big deal. you'd just go to Niles to get the LSL if needed (assuming it will stop there of course). So unless you are within walking distance of Elkhart station, and you have to drive to the station anyway, it just involves a little longer drive north west. There are very few people that can get to South bend station without driving since it is in the ex-Bendix industrial wasteland, though there appears to be some small amount of gentrification happening around there of late. I am kinda sorta familiar with South Bend/Elkhart since I visit there somewhat often to visit my college friend who is a Professor in Notre Dame. Have also rented car in O'Hare and driven down to south bend and explored the are quite a bit by road. It really is not that bad a drive either from South Bend or Elkhart to Niles.

The real loss will be to Waterloo (Fort Wayne) and Bryan.


----------



## kneemeister (Aug 8, 2016)

Bryan is only an hours drive to Toledo. Heck, I work in Bryan, and live about halfway between it and Jackson but always use Waterloo going east, and Jackson going west as it gives me more options now, I always like to go east on the LSL and back On the CL.

Bryan is 60 miles up 127 to JXN and Waterloo is a about the same to Battle Creek via I-69 and I-94

Someone needs to start a van service WTI-BYN-TOL for LSL passengers.


----------



## PerRock (Aug 12, 2016)

From the other forum in which I opened this thread with a link to.







peter


----------



## neroden (Aug 12, 2016)

afigg said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > TylerP42 said:
> ...


That's a great question, and sadly, Amtrak has not published that data.
However, we do have some information, thanks to NARP:

76.7% of travellers from Bryan travelled 100-199 miles. In other words, they mostly went to Chicago.

Top city pairs by ridership, 2015

1. Chicago -- 180 miles

2. New York -- 779 miles (4.7% of travellers in this range)

3. Albany -- 638 miles (5.5% of travellers in this range, also includes Schenectady)

4. Syracuse -- 488 miles (4.3% of travellers in this range, also includes Rochester)

5. Toledo -- 54 miles (3.4% of travellers in this range)

6. Buffalo -- 348 miles (2.1% of travellers in this range)

7. Utica -- 542 miles (1.6% of travellers in this range)

8. Schenectady -- 620 miles (5.5% of travellers in this range, also includes Albany)

9. Rochester -- 409 miles (4.3% of travellers in this range, also includes Syracuse)

Looks like we're talking about fewer than 800 passengers per year from Bryan to upstate NY + Erie. I guess one passenger a day has to drive to or from Toledo? I have to drive the same distance from Ithaca to Syracuse, and Ithaca is much bigger than Bryan..

----

Regarding that new schedule:

-- It should not take 1:40 to go from Toledo to Dearborn, and if they plan to do this long term, they will have to fix this. This isn't really viable with this delay.

-- NS and CSX better not delay the train, because the connections to the western trains are quite tight. Now that Amtrakdelays is down permanently, it's impossible to easily find out how often it would have misconnected. Anything over 1 1/2 hours breaks the Texas Eagle connection. The LSL was 3 hours late yesterday, apparently thanks to CSX. Most of the delays lately are in the vicinity of Buffalo.

-- They seem to have squeezed time out of the schedule from Battle Creek to Niles (presumably the upgrades). East of Battle Creek, I guess the upgrades aren't done.

-- Hammond-Whiting, really? I thought the railroads didn't like stopping trains there.

-- It's skipping all the unstaffed stations -- except Hammond-Whiting?!? It seems like an odd choice.

-- The schedule which would be more interesting is the eastbound schedule.

A lot of the problems would be alleviated by upgrading the "Junction Yard Branch" and knocking at least 12 minutes out of Toledo-Dearborn quite cheaply.


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 12, 2016)

This only shows NY-CHI.. What about CHI-NY?


----------



## keelhauled (Aug 12, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> This only shows NY-CHI.. What about CHI-NY?


Why don't you ask your SourcesTM?


----------



## PerRock (Aug 12, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> This only shows NY-CHI.. What about CHI-NY?


Oh good point, I was reading it like a regular Amtrak TT, with the LH side being NYP-CHI and the RH side being CHI-NYP... explains my confusion as to why most stops in MI happened at the same time.

peter


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 12, 2016)

keelhauled said:


> TylerP42 said:
> 
> 
> > This only shows NY-CHI.. What about CHI-NY?
> ...


I never specifically ask for information like this because I know at times it can be very sensitive. If they chose to give it to me, so be it.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 12, 2016)

Yes page two would be much more interesting.

Even more intriguing is the fax is page one of one.

Dare I think it's a fake?


----------



## amtrakpass (Aug 12, 2016)

It's 3 main tracks by Hammond Whiting now. I don't see an issue with stopping the trains here. The platform is just on track 1 although last year there were temporary platforms on track 2 also but i think they were removed. Interlockings with crossovers immedietely on either side of the station so it should be no problem for the dispatcher anyway. If the general public knew it was there and all the trains stopped there it probably would have fairly decent ridership eventually since it would be easier to drive and leave your car there than get downtown for many folks on that side of the city. But with zero marketing, no agent and a facility that's showing it's age, it'a potential is somewhat limited. There is a road crossing that would be blocked by a long train but it is not a busy street at all and that should be no issue for a couple minutes. Incidently this area if you are unfamiliar is nicer than it looks from the train. Downtown mainstreet Whiting is cool, a nice lakefront park is close by and a Casino is next door to the station.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 12, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> This only shows NY-CHI.. What about CHI-NY?


Not going to run in that direction. They'll just keep piling up in Chicago until they run out of equipment.

(although if I remember the old joke correctly, aren't the westbound trains all Superliners?)


----------



## SarahZ (Aug 12, 2016)

Ryan said:


> (although if I remember the old joke correctly, aren't the westbound trains all Superliners?)


I forgot about that. :-D


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 13, 2016)

I do not recall saying that.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 13, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> I do not recall saying that.


Nobody said you did. They're referring to someone else, possibly before you even joined AU.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 13, 2016)

Yes, a very old joke, back in the days of guest posting, IIRC...

There was a discussion about what trains had superliners and what trains had view liners, and our intrepid guest insisted on saying "westbound" and "eastbound" instead of western and eastern. When the logic of the situation was pointed out, you would have trains stranded on the coast, much hilarity ensued.


----------



## JayPea (Aug 13, 2016)

Ryan said:


> Yes, a very old joke, back in the days of guest posting, IIRC...
> 
> There was a discussion about what trains had superliners and what trains had view liners, and our intrepid guest insisted on saying "westbound" and "eastbound" instead of western and eastern. When the logic of the situation was pointed out, you would have trains stranded on the coast, much hilarity ensued.


One of the classics.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 13, 2016)

There are some cuckoo booking options in October. For example, I looked up Buffalo to Niles, MI. One option was to take 49 all the way to Chicago, lay over for the day, and come back east on the Bluewater. Meanwhile, a person could've gotten off 49 at Niles early that morning.

Eastbound, the only options presented to go from Niles back to Buffalo is to go west to Chicago, and come back through Niles in the evening. Simply does not make sense.


----------



## jis (Aug 13, 2016)

Clearly the diversion of 48/49 is not final enough yet for it to have found its way into the reservation system.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 13, 2016)

jis said:


> Clearly the diversion of 48/49 is not final enough yet for it to have found its way into the reservation system.


Yes it has. 49 the first option westbound between the two burgs.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 13, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Clearly the diversion of 48/49 is not final enough yet for it to have found its way into the reservation system.
> ...


Translation needed.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 13, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Sorry. Train 49 comes up as the first option for travel between Buffalo and Niles. And a room is sky high if you'd like to go in a sleeping car, I might add.


----------



## jis (Aug 13, 2016)

Interesting! It has on the full web site but not on the mobile site! I was looking at the mobile site initially.

And the hopelessly screwed up site shows that the LSL arrives at both Toledo and Niles at 5:55am! It still leaves NYP at its current scheduled time and arrives in Chicago at 9:45.

If you call that as having been added, OK!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Aug 13, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Just-Thinking-51 said:
> 
> 
> > Palmetto said:
> ...


I just searched it and all options still show bus from TOL and transfer to Wolverine or are via CHI.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 13, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> Palmetto said:
> 
> 
> > Just-Thinking-51 said:
> ...


I'm seeing the same thing. Number 49 indeed shows as the first option (obviously), but requires a Thruway and Wolverine connection.

What dates show something different? I tried 10-12 and 10-20.


----------



## jis (Aug 13, 2016)

Here you go ...




Looks like it got fixed. For a period the first choice was a single seat ride arriving NLS at 5:55am, same as the scheduled arrival at TOL.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 13, 2016)

So, how are people seeing two different things? Odd.

The thought also occurs to me that Amtrak would just as soon see this operation fail, since there hasn't been a peep out of them on it.


----------



## jis (Aug 13, 2016)

The full web site is showing this obviously screwed up thing. The mobile web page is not showing this. Someone at Amtrak is playing around with the full web site. Possibly the mobile website is batch updated from time to time, and the screwed up stuff on the full eyesore has not been pushed to the mobile site yet. And hopefully won't be pushed until it is fixed.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 13, 2016)

What's 'mixed-up' about the full website? I'm seeing what you posted above; Each option requires a Thruway bus or going via Chicago.

Am I missing something obvious? :unsure:


----------



## jis (Aug 13, 2016)

Oh I did not notice. It got fixed. For a period it was showing for BUF to NLS a one seat ride on the LSL arriving at 5:55am, the same arrival time as in TOL, and an absurdly high fare, as the first choice.

I suppose I should have looked at it more closely this time around. Sorry about that.


----------



## A Voice (Aug 13, 2016)

jis said:


> Oh I did not notice. It got fixed. For a period it was showing for BUF to NLS a one seat ride on the LSL arriving at 5:55am, the same arrival time as in TOL, and an absurdly high fare, as the first choice.
> 
> I suppose I should have looked at it more closely this time around. Sorry about that.


Not a problem. Just thought I was losing what's left of my mind... 

What's interesting is that something is indeed happening, and what the website temporarily showed has basically confirmed that.


----------



## west point (Aug 13, 2016)

It may be that there is a beta program out there to be initiated sometime. there may have been a cross leak of the Beta program onto the web site that was redacted ?


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 13, 2016)

I searched about 2 minutes after Jis posted that. Only saw the TOL or CHI connections.


----------



## ScouseAndy (Aug 14, 2016)

Im very disappointed with this trial, it looks like its been set up to fail with this westbound timetable. The could have very easily used the Train No 283 slot out of New York up to Buffalo, if a slot could have been found between Buffalo and Toledo to follow this could have had the train arriving Chicago at virtually the same time as now.

As it stands this now makes the LSL useless for connections to Western Trains and forces all transcontintel travellers from NY to use the 3weekly Cardinal or change in Washington in order to stand even a chance of making same day connections.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 14, 2016)

Agreed, there really isn't much reason not to just move the LSL westbound up to ensure an arrival into CHI around the same time as now. Since the LSL leaves NYP/BOS before 5pm, I don't see it that bad if you have to leave earlier. Is leaving at 1-2pm really that worse than leaving at 3:40?


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 14, 2016)

Has Amtrak even announced this yet?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 14, 2016)

Nothing from Amtrak.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 14, 2016)

But somehow it's already a failure in the mind of armchair railroaders everywhere.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Aug 14, 2016)

Palmetto said:


> Has Amtrak even announced this yet?





Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Nothing from Amtrak.





Ryan said:


> But somehow it's already a failure in the mind of armchair railroaders everywhere.


In the views of armchair railroaders, any change for which anyone loses (is inconvenienced) usually means it shouldn't be done no matter how many more people gain. They'd rather everything stay the way it is rather than possibly one change for which many people in Michigan gain and a few hundred in Bryan, OH lose. Can you make changes to add ridership without taking away from anyone else? Got any money? Without an increase in money, for someone to gain someone has to lose.

On the record, I am not in favor of having the LSL arrive in CHI later to jeopardize the western connections. But I have no problem with the LSL leaving NYP/BOS earlier to gain ridership in Michigan and have no problem with Bryan, South Bend, and Elkhart losing one of their trains (put Bryan on the CL) so Michigan can gain a direct train to the East Coast (assuming you can't just start a third daily train from Chicago to the NEC to accommodate Michigan and let South Bend keep the two they have).


----------



## Ryan (Aug 14, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> In the views of armchair railroaders, any change for which anyone loses (is inconvenienced) usually means it shouldn't be done no matter how many more people gain. They'd rather everything stay the way it is rather than possibly one change for which many people in Michigan gain and a few hundred in Bryan, OH lose.


I'm pretty sure that nobody is actually making this argument.


----------



## neroden (Aug 14, 2016)

Ryan said:


> But somehow it's already a failure in the mind of armchair railroaders everywhere.


Well, that 'leaked' schedule is a failure. The LSL really should be moved up to depart earlier westbound *anyway*. It's not convenient to get onboard at 9:30 PM at Syracuse.

It's also much too tight a connection given the poor train handling on NS and CSX.

If the LSL misconnects to the CZ on October 12th or 13th, there are going to be an awful lot of very annoyed NARP members heading to the meeting in Denver...


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Aug 14, 2016)

I know you guys know a whole lot more than me about trains, etc., but I do believe it takes a little, or maybe a lot, of work to change schedules. They have to find slots that are open both on the NEC (though I guess the LSL doesn't travel on the NEC) and on the freight tracks.


----------



## neroden (Aug 14, 2016)

AmtrakBlue said:


> I know you guys know a whole lot more than me about trains, etc., but I do believe it takes a little, or maybe a lot, of work to change schedules. They have to find slots that are open both on the NEC (though I guess the LSL doesn't travel on the NEC) and on the freight tracks.


Midday is the easiest time to get a slot out of Penn Station and a slot on Metro-North and a slot out of Boston on the MBTA. All of these could be knocked back an hour or two with no trouble at all.

Any changes already require talking to NS.

Certainly there would be some serious talking to CSX to get an earlier westbound slot from Schenectady to Cleveland, and Worcester to Albany. They need one anyway.

This is set up to fail, which makes it pointless. It's not worth running a "test run" until either (a) they can get a decent running speed from Dearborn to Toledo, or (b) they can move the westbound LSL back, or © they can get the freights to actually deliver the train on time, any of which would give a better window of time to connect at Chicago.


----------



## Ryan (Aug 14, 2016)

neroden said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > But somehow it's already a failure in the mind of armchair railroaders everywhere.
> ...


That was kind of my point. If the leaked schedule is made real, then throw stones.

But until we have nothing official, we have... nothing...


----------



## acelafan (Aug 14, 2016)

neroden said:


> Regarding that new schedule:
> 
> -- NS and CSX better not delay the train, because the connections to the western trains are quite tight. Now that Amtrakdelays is down permanently, it's impossible to easily find out how often it would have misconnected. Anything over 1 1/2 hours breaks the Texas Eagle connection. The LSL was 3 hours late yesterday, apparently thanks to CSX. Most of the delays lately are in the vicinity of Buffalo.


You can research likely missed connections at this link. Enter the arriving train #, connecting train #, and the station of interest.

Other train arrival/departure stats can be found here.


----------



## TylerP42 (Aug 15, 2016)

neroden said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > But somehow it's already a failure in the mind of armchair railroaders everywhere.
> ...


Not convenient to get on the train at 9pm? I'd take that over 11:49pm, 2:50am, 5:08am, and 5:55am that I have to deal with in Toledo (which is the busiest station in Ohio)


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2016)

Frankly I don't think the schedule of the LSL is determined by its calling time at SYR. It is primarily driven by slot consideration and arrival and departure times at New York and Boston, and timing in Chicago for reliable connectivity to/from the west. Incidentally if SYR gets a better time so be it.


----------



## Palmetto (Aug 16, 2016)

Wouldn't you say, though, that slots are meaningless at the conclusion of 1000 + mile run where being on time and in the slot is a rare occurence? Even 5 minutes delay in the NYC area can be problematic for Amtrak, as in arriving at CP216 out of the slot and following a New Haven Line train.


----------



## jis (Aug 16, 2016)

It is not a question of 5 minute slot for the LD trains. It is a question of whether one is scheduled with a high likelihood of interfering into what is known as the Commission Hour at New York Penn Station or not. I am sure there is a similar span of a couple of hours each weekday morning and evening at Chicago Union Station too. As long as the LD trains stay away from those and are scheduled with a low probability of spilling into those, things should be fine. One feature of the rush hour is that trains off schedule that appear at those hours tend to get the lowest priority to enter the congested area and are likely to be parked in a siding until an opportunity arises to fit them into the flow.


----------



## Rincewind (Aug 17, 2016)

I booked a cross country trip beginning Oct.5th from New York to San Francisco with the LSL. I got a strange Email from Amtrak yesterday:



> Our records indicate that your upcoming travel on reservation "xyz" has been impacted by one or more schedule changes with the following details:
> 
> You will depart on Amtrak train number 5005 from Emeryville,California on Saturday October 8 at 4:25PM and arrive in San Francisco,California on Saturday October 8 at 5:35PM.
> You will depart on Amtrak number from on at : and arrive in on at :.
> ...


Yes, that is everything. Was this an attempt to inform me about the changes? Is there an official schedule anywhere, besides the one a few pages before? How does Amtrak handle an alternative booking? I bought my ticket back in may as a saver fare but I really want a few hours in Chicago, first to be sure to catch the connecting train even and second to go for a walk an buy fresh food for the trip (coach). Do I have to pay for a change to the Pennsylvanian and the Capitol Limited?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 17, 2016)

Generally you don't have to pay for a change of times due to a Amtrak timetable change. You are asking about a change of route, that is a different ball of wax. Call Amtrak find out what changes have occurred and what options you may have.


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2016)

That message is about schedule change of the Emeryville to San Francisco Thruway Bus. Where is Chicago mentioned in that message?


----------



## PRR 60 (Aug 17, 2016)

jis said:


> That message is about schedule change of the Emeryville to San Francisco Thruway Bus. Where is Chicago mentioned in that message?


I agree. There are wholesale changes with the bus schedules in and out of San Francisco staring August 22, although the #5005 bus for the Zephyr appears unchanged. It is possible that Amtrak simply splashed out this message to everyone with a San Francisco bus segment on their reservation regardless of whether their reserved bus segment was changed or not.

As of this morning, Amtrak.com does not show any changes for Lake Shore service in October.


----------



## Rincewind (Aug 17, 2016)

PRR 60 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > That message is about schedule change of the Emeryville to San Francisco Thruway Bus. Where is Chicago mentioned in that message?
> ...


I was woundering the same. The time for the Thruway bus is the same as in my ticket from may. I was unsure about all the



> You will depart on Amtrak number from on at : and arrive in on at :.


lines below. Or is this normal?


----------



## jis (Aug 17, 2016)

No it is not normal, but it has been known to have happened in the past. The automation script for generating those messages screwed up somehow.


----------



## jis (Aug 31, 2016)

Credible rumor now has it that the proposed rerouting of the LSL will not take place in October and may happen at some later time if issues can all be worked out.

There goes the chances of my rare mileage run  OTOH, the chances of making the connection to the CZ in Chicago increases enormously.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 31, 2016)

Which begs the question of why?

Why was there going to be a short notice reroute.

Do we passengers have no meaning to Amtrak?


----------



## rrdude (Aug 31, 2016)

Crap I was gonna take it to ARB, from the east coast, "just to say I took a sleeper to/from Ann Arbor". I don't think I ever got on a sleeper, when I was a wee toddler, for the trip to Ft. Dodge, IA. Prolly woulda just been MC to Chicago, and then switch over to IC (?)

I do hope they give this an experiment though, maybe when the ENTIRE track (owned by the State) in Michigan is "at speed", would make more sense.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Aug 31, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> I would have made a few posts but I really haven't had anything that I can affirmatively add to any of the threads. The dates and locations for the Charger's NEC testing have been penciled and you already know about the Lake Shore...which is odd since I thought they were moving the Capitol. Then again, I can see there may be another change down the road which may explain this move.


Above a post from Off-Topic

A post from early in this topic:



Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Succeed how?
> 
> What the goal?
> 
> ...


.


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 1, 2016)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Which begs the question of why?
> 
> Why was there going to be a short notice reroute.
> 
> Do we passengers have no meaning to Amtrak?



To be fair, we don't know for certain if there was going to be a short notice reroute or if there will be one in the feature. Perhaps there was a cut off date for all aspects of the proposal to come together to ensure execution. That date could have been at the beginning of August for anyone in this thread actually knows.

That's because all we have in this thread is a bunch of leaked information that was never (to my knowledge) officially confirmed, denied or even acknowledged by Amtrak.


----------



## ScouseAndy (Sep 1, 2016)

Perhaps the rumour was true and the reroute will still be October and nothing has changed. After all the original post never specified the year...


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 1, 2016)

ScouseAndy said:


> Perhaps the rumour was true and the reroute will still be October and nothing has changed. After all the original post never specified the year...


Yes...it is obviously timed to change just after the release of the VL IIs. They're coming out in September, remember?


----------



## jis (Sep 1, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> That's because all we have in this thread is a bunch of leaked information that was never (to my knowledge) officially confirmed, denied or even acknowledged by Amtrak.


Yup, and the first one coming from you know who - on Facebook 

There has never been even a whiff of anything official or even semi-official from Amtrak. It is just that Amtrak Chicago area staff and a bunch of folks in Toledo apparently leaks like a sieve.


----------



## neroden (Sep 1, 2016)

jis said:


> Credible rumor now has it that the proposed rerouting of the LSL will not take place in October and may happen at some later time if issues can all be worked out.


Someone realized the connections at Chicago didn't work.

Hopefully they're going back and coming up with a scheme which would work, and will try it if they come up with one.


----------



## rrdude (Sep 1, 2016)

Yeah, but it was fun to fantasize about taking a sleeper to ARB, at least.


----------



## MikefromCrete (Sep 1, 2016)

Well, well, well. Much to do about nothing. Of course, we should all have known that, since there never was any kind of official announcement from Amtrak. The whole thing belongs in that fantasy thread at the top of the page.


----------



## Rincewind (Sep 2, 2016)

jis said:


> OTOH, the chances of making the connection to the CZ in Chicago increases enormously.


For me this is great news. So I still have the option to try an original Chicago style Pan pizza during the stopover early October!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 2, 2016)

neroden said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Credible rumor now has it that the proposed rerouting of the LSL will not take place in October and may happen at some later time if issues can all be worked out.
> ...


Leave New York/Boston earlier. How hard is that to figure out? The LSL leaves NYP before the evening rush hour, how much different will be if it leaves at 12:40pm rather than 3:40pm?


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Sep 2, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


Availability of slots comes to mind.


----------



## jis (Sep 2, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


The armchair solutions do not include the really hard part, which is getting agreement from CSX and NS. Do you really believe that the scheduling folks at Amtrak are unable to figure out a modified theoretical timetable and that is what is holding things up?  It is not just a question of shuffling the time for LSL, but adjusting times of Empire Service, and making sure that Albany does not have a glut of trains while trying to handle the LSL - a problem with its current westbound schedule to some extent.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 2, 2016)

jis said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> > neroden said:
> ...


The fact that the "proposed" schedule change threatened the western connections tells me they may not necessary know what they are doing.


----------



## jis (Sep 2, 2016)

We don't even know whether that so called "proposed schedule" came from anyone in the Amtrak planning department or if someone just cooked up their own and posted it.

As far as I am concerned we have so far heard nothing from Amtrak. We have heard stuff conjured up by some Amtrak employees based on something they were asked to consider as possibility, and then communicated by people, who when challenged told us that they may have heard wrong. That suggests that it is possible that actually no one in a position of any ability to do anything was seriously planning to use any so called proposed schedule that we saw. _AU is a major rumor mill_, and yes I do participate in it, but each time stating clearly that it is hearsay, and we need to treat it as such. It is fun to discuss various rumors and pontificate about it. but the leap from there to start believing that Amtrak officially was about to do something on a specific schedule at least for me is a bridge too far.

So consider who exactly is the "they" you speak of, and how did you validate that the said "they" had anything to do with anything. It is always some usually trusted source that said something that someone from here interpreted their own way and posted here, until we hear officially from Amtrak. Just a cautionary note.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Sep 2, 2016)

It's not like all of the currently running Amtrak schedules are perfect either. Obviously there are a ton of constraints that Amtrak has to deal with (stations/host railroads) but certainly some negotiation can be done to improve them.


----------



## jis (Sep 2, 2016)

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> It's not like all of the currently running Amtrak schedules are perfect either. Obviously there are a ton of constraints that Amtrak has to deal with (stations/host railroads) but certainly some negotiation can be done to improve them.


Yes, but the issue still remains as to how important are those minor tweaks in the bigger scheme of things when what you are fighting for is an existential issue, not a scheduling issue?
While your roof is caving in, how important is it to spend time fine tuning your air-conditioner settings?


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Sep 2, 2016)

Oh well. Was a fun rumor for folks with ties to Michigan. Probably not so much for the folks in Northern Indiana or near Bryan, Ohio. I guess we'll see if anything comes to fruition eventually.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Sep 2, 2016)

jis said:


> It is just that Amtrak Chicago area staff and a bunch of folks in Toledo apparently leaks like a sieve.


We can't keep secrets in Chicago (that's why our politicians are always indicted).


----------



## railiner (Sep 2, 2016)

If you really want to "keep" a secret.....tell no one...


----------



## ScouseAndy (Sep 2, 2016)

perhaps this was leaked by Amtrak in a none official way to judge reactions from the people who care about Amtrak more than anyone namely those using forums such as (but not limited to) AU.

This way when the general reactions are negative around the proposal they can pull it and take on board the constructive critics then retweak it without losing face and having to do a U-turn.

​This sort of thing can and does happen in other industries so why not Amtrak?


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 3, 2016)

ScouseAndy said:


> perhaps this was leaked by Amtrak in a none official way to judge reactions from the people who care about Amtrak more than anyone namely those using forums such as (but not limited to) AU.
> 
> This way when the general reactions are negative around the proposal they can pull it and take on board the constructive critics then retweak it without losing face and having to do a U-turn.
> 
> ​This sort of thing can and does happen in other industries so why not Amtrak?


Interesting.

So, you really think that someone at Amtrak leaked this to a teenager, who (reportedly) posted it on Facebook and other places for the sole purpose of soliciting feedback?

I'm not sure why, but I think I want to watch Billy Madison. I'm typically not an Adam Sandler fan but this movie did have its moments. Here's a clip to help you judge for yourself though.


----------



## jis (Sep 3, 2016)

That was a brilliant response Thirdrail! Can't agree with you more!


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 3, 2016)

jis said:


> That was a brilliant response Thirdrail! Can't agree with you more!


I'm here all night, taking requests. Don't forget to tip your waitstaff...for college, of course!



railiner said:


> If you really want to "keep" a secret.....tell no one...


Indeed, but remember when things are told, there is often distortion when the last person receives the message. I have a feeling that someday, we're all going to sit back and have a nice laugh about this...assuming you haven't been laughing all along.

Perhaps, we'll even laugh at someone!







To be continued..............


----------



## TylerP42 (Sep 3, 2016)

Must be talking about someone else. Last time I checked, I was 19, and an adult. Unlike some people here who act like children.


----------



## TylerP42 (Sep 3, 2016)

Anyways, on the subject of this. My guess is that they did some studies and decided it was not the right time to do so. Michigan had been trying for a long distance train and Amtrak is probably trying to find and reasonable way to do this "test". It is exciting from both ends - and that's what buisness is about, think about something and look into it - and make the best possible outcome from it. Hopefully something good comes from this


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Sep 3, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> Must be talking about someone else. * Last time I checked, I was 19, and an adult. *Unlike some people here who act like children.


This is almost too easy:



> teen·ag·er
> 
> ˈtēnˌājər/
> 
> ...


Additionally, I'm not on Facebook so I never saw your post. I am also aware that you didn't start this thread which is why I used the word "reportedly."



TylerP42 said:


> Anyways, on the subject of this. My guess is that they did some studies and decided it was not the right time to do so. Michigan had been trying for a long distance train and Amtrak is probably trying to find and reasonable way to do this "test". It is exciting from both ends - and that's what buisness is about, think about something and look into it - and make the best possible outcome from it. Hopefully something good comes from this



Like I said, we're all going to get a nice laugh out of this at some point.

If I may make a suggestion, this thread has temporarily run its length. Perhaps it is time for a lock down until more information comes out...before accusations of personal attacks (and actual attacks) start flying.

I'm sure someones "sources" will start blabbing in a matter of weeks at which time we can reconvene.


----------



## ScouseAndy (Sep 4, 2016)

Thirdrail7 said:


> ScouseAndy said:
> 
> 
> > perhaps this was leaked by Amtrak in a none official way to judge reactions from the people who care about Amtrak more than anyone namely those using forums such as (but not limited to) AU.
> ...



Happens far more often then you might think actually lots of companies will start rumours on social media to gauge feedback, but rather than wake up and open your eyes you keep with your sarcastic responses


----------



## Ryan (Sep 4, 2016)

He didn't say anything about how often it happens, he expressed skepticism that Amtrak did it.

Being that he works there and appears to have known more about this plan than anyone chasing rumors on the internet, I'm going to go ahead and believe him.


----------



## TylerP42 (Sep 8, 2016)

From what I hear there was logistical reasons on why it couldn't happen this October, but Amtrak is still kicking the plan around and trying to figure it out.

At this point, you may want to close the thread until something else happens.


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2016)

All I can say is that I did list a whole host of logistical items that would need working out and had expressed a certain level of skepticism that they would be worked out in the given time-frame that was initially suggested. I had also expressed skepticism about certain core parameters that were mentioned in the original rumor. They seemed to require modification of the laws of Physics and such. Oh well....Until the next time I guess.... It just did not pass the smell and taste test in its original form.


----------



## WoodyinNYC (Sep 8, 2016)

This notion seemed premature from the first. *Next October* makes much more sense. All the Stimulus-funded work in Michigan, and the little bit in Indiana, should be finished by then.

Meanwhile, this was a great one for Boardman to leave for the next boss, LOL. Wick Moorman, the next boss, it turns out, should know a lot about it. The _Lake Shore Ltd_ runs on Norfolk Southern track Cleveland-Chicago now. He can make the new route/detour work if anyone can.


----------



## JoeBas (Sep 8, 2016)

TylerP42 said:


> From what I hear there was logistical reasons on why it couldn't happen this Octobe


Yeah, like the fact that the Einstein-Rosen Bridge between Toledo and Detroit hasn't been invented yet... h34r:


----------



## west point (Sep 9, 2016)

Good points about logistics! Ideally the LSL & CL would need to both arrive Toledo at same time. Both trains be single level and interchange at least one car each to other train. There isn't enough single level cars at present. Getting NS & CSX both on board to change schedules is another problem. Then of course decent running times TOL - Detroit. Personnel switcher at TOL more problems. More reliable time keeping. Logistics goes on and on.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Sep 9, 2016)

They don't both necessarily have to be single level. You could attach cars to the transition sleeper or have a cross platform transfer. I personally prefer Superliners and would be less likely to travel east of Chicago on Amtrak if the CL became single level.


----------



## reppin_the_847 (Sep 9, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> They don't both necessarily have to be single level. You could attach cars to the transition sleeper or have a cross platform transfer. I personally prefer Superliners and would be less likely to travel east of Chicago on Amtrak if the CL became single level.


The Superliners are nice & I love the lounge areas. My one qualm with the Superliners are the upper decks inside of the roomettes compared to the Viewliners. Also, I doubt Superliners will ever be introduced on the Lakeshore Limited as long as these trains have to go into NYC's Penn Station. I don't think there's a way for them to accommodate Superliners at Penn Station (tunnel height restrictions).


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Sep 9, 2016)

reppin_the_847 said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > They don't both necessarily have to be single level. You could attach cars to the transition sleeper or have a cross platform transfer. I personally prefer Superliners and would be less likely to travel east of Chicago on Amtrak if the CL became single level.
> ...


Yes, unfortunately there is not sufficient clearance in NYP for Superliners. I usually prefer going via WAS so I can be on the Superliner train for most of the trip. The roomettes are nicer in Viewliners, but I usually travel in coach and even when I'm in a sleeper I spend most of my time in the lounge on Superliners.


----------



## TylerP42 (Sep 9, 2016)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> They don't both necessarily have to be single level. You could attach cars to the transition sleeper or have a cross platform transfer. I personally prefer Superliners and would be less likely to travel east of Chicago on Amtrak if the CL became single level.


Toledo doesn't have tracks on the same platform. It goes platform, track 1, disconnected track 2, platform, active track 3, platform, disconnected tracks and so on with 3 or more platforms after that


----------



## PerRock (Sep 9, 2016)

Toledo does have a platform bridge, although I don't know what it would take to get it usable again. Isn't Track 4 still connected, just not a thru track? I want to say they put stuff on it a year or two ago for NTD.

peter


----------



## TylerP42 (Sep 9, 2016)

Pretty sure at this point it's just 1 and 3.


----------

