# Michigan to Toledo/East Coast?



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 2, 2015)

All Aboard Ohio had suggested introducing travel from Michigan to the East Coast via Toledo. An extended Pennsylvanian train (separate from the CL) would travel from Chicago up the Wolverine route up to Dearborn and then to TOL/CLE/PGH/PHL/NYP. They would run another train (Three Rivers) along the same route.

http://allaboardohio.org/2015/09/22/new-report-restore-passenger-rail/

Both trains would allow direct access from Ann Arbor and Dearborn (not Detroit) to cities along the Keystone route as well as PGH. I believe Amtrak and Michigan own the line between CHI and Dearborn so they can run the train faster that way.

Now assuming we don't extend a train, then the question is would this reroute through Michigan be used on either the CL or LSL? Amtrak pointed out the possibility of the train in 2011 but dismissed it due to lost traffic at the skipped stops. Currently that would be Bryan, Waterloo, Elkhart, and South Bend on the LSL and all but Bryan on the CL. If we reroute one of the trains, passengers in each city would still be able to go to Chicago as well as Cleveland and Toledo. 12,700 passengers used the LSL at South Bend but many of them could be to CHI (which I would guess would be the largest % of the 12,700),CLE, or TOL, so they can just take the other train. The other Indiana towns had smaller numbers.

If you reroute the CL to Michigan, you'd lose fewer passengers but you give Michigan fewer choices on the CL (unless you add the Cap-Pennsylvanian through cars). If you reroute the LSL to Michigan, you'd make it more attractive for Michigan (they can go to BUF, ALB, SYR, and NYP) but you'd lose more Indiana passengers (the assumption would be Bryan would be added to the CL).

One way to help the Indiana towns would be to make it possible to transfer from one train to the other at either CLE or TOL. For it to work, you'd have to have the first train reaching CLE/TOL from the East head to Michigan and the second one to Indiana so anyone wanting to go on the first train could transfer in CLE/TOL to Indiana. By contrast, the Indiana branch would have to reach TOL/CLE before the Michigan branch.

Let's say the LSL goes to/from Michigan and the CL remains unchanged. Then the CL would have to get to TOL or CLE first. South Bend passengers would get on the CL, head to TOL or CLE and then catch the LSL to New York/Boston. By contrast, they would have to get off the LSL at CLE or TOL and then catch the CL home. So the LSL would have to reach CLE/TOL first for this to work.

Right now the CL gets to TOL/CLE going in both directions. Now we could move the departure times from NYP/BOS earlier to make sure the train reaches CLE and TOL before the CL. The LSL will need more time to get to CHI from TOL because of the route through Michigan so it might work.

You can also switch it so the CL uses the Michigan route.

Barring a new train, is a reroute of either the CL or LSL worthwhile? The train can run faster on the Wolverine route and maybe Norfolk Southern would enjoy one fewer train on the CHI to CLE route. Plus you introduce a whole new set of pairs. If Amtrak does get the CL/Pennsylvanian connection, passengers would be able to take both trains from IND to NYP so that could help minimize the loss of passengers from Indiana.


----------



## afigg (Nov 2, 2015)

Re-routing either the Capitol Limited or Lake Shore Limited or a restored Three Rivers from Toledo through Michigan to take advantage of the 110 mph corridor when it is completed has been discussed on here. The benefit is that it would provide direct service between southern Michigan and Toledo/Cleveland & the east coast. When the NS tracks west of Toledo have been blocked due to a derailment or track work, the CL and LSL have been diverted at Toledo to run through Michigan so the tracks are there for it.

A disadvantage is that, even after the 110 mph upgrades are completed on the Michigan corridor is that it would probably add around 2 hours and roughly 100 miles (IIRC) to the trip between Toledo and Chicago. The tracks north from Toledo to west of Detroit are reportedly 60 mph tracks at best. Also, unless the train did a (slow) backup move of some sort, it would not stop at Detroit, but would serve Dearborn, Ann Arbor, Jackson.

The NS route between Chicago to Toledo, Cleveland is a competitive one in trip times, well, except for the slow slog between Porter IN and CHI for the CL and LSL. Adding roughly 2 hours for either the CL or LSL could hurt CHI to TOL/CLE passenger traffic and would complicate the endpoint schedules. So this is an idea that has been discussed at length, but there are drawbacks. If a Three Rivers would somehow to be restored to service (which would take a major league miracle), perhaps as a "new" service to the current schedule, it could run through Michigan. We could nickname it the Rust Belt Revival as it would serve Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, southern Michigan.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 2, 2015)

I think there is a market for MI-NEC. But I don't think there is enough of a market to justify it. Rerouting a train makes sense on paper. But the current trains especially the LSL sell out a lot already. So having two trains adds capacity for CLE-CHI which is technically marketed as three different trains 29, 49, 449. But in reality is two trains. I also see it as an issue with the route to Detroit not having had passenger trains in recent times. It would need upgrading, and other improvements to capacity, and speed. So I don't see it happening anytime soon. But lets take my proposed train idea that I had once we get new coaches, and equipment. NYP-BUF-CLE(Split)-Columbus-CIN (In Daylight) and CLE-TOL-DET-CHI in daylight. With the overnight being NYP-BUF. The only issue is no connections in Chicago, but you have the connections in New York for trains to the southeast. Then we incorporate the Three Cs, and the Rustbelt cities of Southern Michigan all in one train.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 2, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> I think there is a market for MI-NEC. But I don't think there is enough of a market to justify it. Rerouting a train makes sense on paper. But the current trains especially the LSL sell out a lot already. So having two trains adds capacity for CLE-CHI which is technically marketed as three different trains 29, 49, 449. But in reality is two trains. I also see it as an issue with the route to Detroit not having had passenger trains in recent times. It would need upgrading, and other improvements to capacity, and speed. So I don't see it happening anytime soon. But lets take my proposed train idea that I had once we get new coaches, and equipment. NYP-BUF-CLE(Split)-Columbus-CIN (In Daylight) and CLE-TOL-DET-CHI in daylight. With the overnight being NYP-BUF. The only issue is no connections in Chicago, but you have the connections in New York for trains to the southeast. Then we incorporate the Three Cs, and the Rustbelt cities of Southern Michigan all in one train.


The suggestion in the comments that I like was:

"“Three Rivers” main (40/41) – New York/Phila/Pitt/Clev/Dearborn/Chicago, 9:50pm to 6:00pm going west and 11:50am to 8:58am going east.

“Three Rivers” Ohio through cars (440/441) – Cincinnati/Columbus/Cleveland hooking up to Chicago train at Cleveland continuing to PA/New York: North 1:45pm to 7:30pm, South: 11:30am-5:15pm."

The sample schedule for the TR is listed in the document.

http://freepdfhosting.com/38886f65ec.pdf

West: NYP 9:50pm, PHL 11:42pm, HAR 1:46am (ugh!), PGH 7:05-7:30am, CLE 10:30-10:35am, TOL 12:40-12:50pm, Dearborn 3:00pm, Ann Arbor 3:25pm, CHI 6:00pm

East: CHI 11:50am, Ann Arbor 4:20pm, Dearborn 4:50pm, TOL 6:25-6:35pm, CLE 8:20-8:30pm, PGH 11:30-11:45pm, HAR 5:08am, PHL 7:08am, NYP 8:58am

To hook/unhook in CLE, you'd have to push back the TOL to CHI times and push forward the CHI to TOL times. Going east, the train would have to wait for the Ohio cars from Cincinnati/Columbus.

This train would have no connection to the west coast. Passengers on the Keystone route would still have to take the Pennsylvanian to the Capitol (assuming no through cars) to go west of Chicago (or spend the night in CHI). But if the goal is to Chicago, the train works pretty well for PHL. It might be too late for HAR (and worse for Altoona) but would you rather leave in the middle of the night and go through or spend almost 4 hours in PGH and not leave until almost midnight.

I probably wouldn't call it Three Rivers as it sounds like it's just a Pittsburgh area train. The schedule was similar to the proposed "Skyline Connection" so that could be a possible name. I like "Liberty Limited" for the Philadelphia connection.

Then you can say the LSL is NYP's train, CL is WAS's train, and the LL is PHL's train (even though it would go to NYP).

Cleveland and Toledo would love this new train (unless they want to go beyond CHI where they would have to stick with the CL/LSL). The train also works well as an overnight train between PGH and PHL/NJ/NYP. And if the CIN-Columbus-CLE through cars are added, you can go anywhere from Ohio to Pennyslvania/New Jersey/NYP.

NYP to CIN: 9:50pm to 5:15pm (19 hr, 25 min)

CIN to NYP: 1:45pm to 8:58am (19 hr, 13 min)

The times are comparable to the Cardinal but arrive/leave at better times. You'd have to take the Cardinal to go to CHI/west of CHI.

The report suggested hooking the CIN to CLE cars to the LSL but that would force the LSL to arrive in CHI too late or leave CHI to early to connect west of Chicago. I thought that was a horrible idea for the LSL. I did suggest shifting the Cardinal times to better benefit IND/CIN but that would also break the connections in CHI.

So what would be the consist for this train? I believe NS is the only freight company to deal with (CHI to Porter, IN and TOL to HAR). You'd also have to connect TOL with Dearborn so that could be another company.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 3, 2015)

You do realize I had my proposal routed over the EX NYC out of New York to Cleveland? The split of a New York-BUF-CLE train makes more sense from a passenger point of view. Operationally I see a point there about dealing with one freight railroad exclusively. That could be a selling point. And in discretion I am a NYC fan. I see it as a better split my method. But explain why yours works better. We might find some common ground.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 3, 2015)

If I understand you correctly,

We are both suggesting a route CHI-Michigan-NYP and we are both suggesting through cars from CIN to CLE connecting in CLE and heading east to NYP. Neither of our routes will be able to connect in CHI to western routes.

You want this train to travel along the Empire (upstate NY) route traveling overnight between BUF and NYP.

I want the train to travel along the Keystone (PA) route traveling overnight between PGH and PHL.

There already is a train from the Empire route to CHI. There is no train from the Keystone route to CHI. So why run a 2nd train on a route you already have when you can run a train along a route you don't have? So you'd rather Buffalo, Syracuse, and Albany have two trains to Chicago while Harrisburg and Lancaster still have zero to Chicago and Philadelphia stuck with the Cardinal.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 4, 2015)

We have some common ground. While I don't see this as the best market I'm the world NYP-DET-CHI. I don't see it being the best. But I see NYP-CLE-CIN as a great market. I ran the ridership numbers on the Lake Shore Limited it sells 512 tickets on average each direction. It has 364 coach seats, 90 sleeping car space. That's 58 more then capacity. I see some demand there. While the other market I'm working on research on that. If you have ridership figures it would help me out.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 4, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> We have some common ground. While I don't see this as the best market I'm the world NYP-DET-CHI. I don't see it being the best. But I see NYP-CLE-CIN as a great market. I ran the ridership numbers on the Lake Shore Limited it sells 512 tickets on average each direction. It has 364 coach seats, 90 sleeping car space. That's 58 more then capacity. I see some demand there. While the other market I'm working on research on that. If you have ridership figures it would help me out.


The 2004 data from NARP on the Three Rivers. It was fairly close to the ridership on the CL. And my train would serve NYP too. Philadelphia is a bigger market than any other market between CLE and NYP on the LSL route so they would get PHL and NYP.

NARPtrains2004.pdf


----------



## neroden (Nov 5, 2015)

There is an enormous market for Detroit-Toledo-New York.

* I was told a few years ago that when people call 1-800-USA-RAIL, the single most requested city pair which *is not served by Amtrak* is Detroit-New York.

* At the recent Michigan state hearings on "within Michigan" rail service, the most requested route was actually [Grand Rapids-Lansing-Ann Arbor-Detroit] to Toledo and the East Coast. Even though that isn't within Michigan.

* Detroit-Toledo service was well patronized (for the time) when it existed.

* The Toledo-Michigan Amtrak connecting buses are very busy, even though they're not pleasant.

* I have personally witnessed people walking up to the Syracuse station counter trying to get tickets to Detroit and frustratedly leaving and driving to the airport.

* I personally have two friends who go back to their families in Michigan *twice a year*. The bus from Toledo is not their favorite thing.

* Detroit and New York City have very strong cultural links. There is a lot of travel between them by all means.

* There are also strong links and a lot of travel between the rest of Michigan and upstate NY.

I think we can discuss details, but the key thing is that it should be possible to take a train from Michigan to the East.

I think the schedule should be designed to allow a daytime change-of-train at Toledo to catch trains in any eastern direction (upstate NY, Boston, Vermont, Monteral, NYC, Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, DC, etc). This should be possible.

I don't really care how it's done, but I think these are the principles by which such a train should be designed.]

----

Let's consider the absolutely most dumb-ass K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid) design for such a train. Forget about one-seat rides and design good transfers at Toledo. Note that Toledo has enough tracks and platforms for multiple trains to be in the station at once and for trains to sit and get light servicing (this is why Toledo should be the transfer point, not Cleveland.) Any complaints about the current platform layout... will have to be addressed by mandatory ADA rebuilding anyway.

Amtrak takes about 5 hours from Chicago to Pontiac right now on the faster Wolverines and we can assume the same or less from Chicago to Detroit via Dearborn.

First try: Don't mess with the existing CL or LSL.

-- Eastbound must arrive at Toledo before 11:49PM (for the CL), before 3:20 AM (for the LSL)... whoops, that violates my daytime transfer rule.

Second try: Assume the restructuring of the CL and LSL presented in the Performance Improvement Plans -- eastbound LSL departs at 6 PM, eastbound CL departs at 7:30 PM. Then eastbound LSL would depart Toledo at about 11:20 PM, and eastbound CL would depart Toledo at about 12:39 PM... OK, it's not daytime, but it's not *crazy* late.

-- Then the Eastbound Michigan-Toledo train could depart Chicago before 6:20 PM (call it 6 PM) and make all the connections at Toledo. [i'm tempted to call it the "Lake Shore Limited", and run a separate (shorter) set of "Indiana Branch LSL" cars on the existing route. If Amtrak and the hosts were really on the ball, they could arrange for the LSL to arrive from Michigan, the CL to arrive from Indiana, passengers to change trains in both directions, and then for both trains to leave for their destinations. But since that's unlikely, it could just be a separate train from Chicago to Toledo.]

-- The Westbound Toledo-Michigan train would then depart Toledo any time after 5:55 AM (when the LSL arrives) and 5:08 AM (when the CL arrives) -- but either train could be late, so really it should depart at roughly 7 AM. And get to Chicago around noon.

This gives us a Chicago-Michigan-Toledo train which runs:

Eastbound Chicago 6 PM - Toledo 11 PM

Westbound Toledo 7 AM - Chicago noon

The nice thing about this schedule? I think on its merits as a standalone train, this would be highly successful.

Fix up the Toledo station a bit (high-level platform for the LSL, renovated low-level platform for the CL and future Michigan bilevels, restore the overhead elevator/stair access to the back platforms, better waiting room) and it would make for a comfortable transfer to either the CL or the LSL.

Caveats:

(1) This would take the slot of the last Wolverine out of Chicago to Pontiac. So Be It.

(2) This would also take the slot of the westbound Blue Water. The Blue Water would probably have to be shifted either earlier or later. This might require shifting the westbound Wolverines around too.

This is just a KISS proposal -- the one which would require the least messing around. It could be implemented independently of the PIP plan to reschedule the LSL and CL; it would just mean long late-night connections in that direction. It would require Michigan state funding, but it would act as a commuter train from Toledo to Michigan, so that's plausible (arguably more plausible than getting national funding).


----------



## jis (Nov 5, 2015)

The previous Amtrak Chicago - Detroit - Toledo train was named the Lake Cities AFAIR.


----------



## afigg (Nov 5, 2015)

jis said:


> The previous Amtrak Chicago - Detroit - Toledo train was named the Lake Cities AFAIR.


Which has a wikipedia page: Lake Cities (Amtrak train). Ran from Chicago to Detroit to Toledo from 1980 to 1995 when it was then rerouted to Pontiac with a bus connection to Toledo. Had a 7.5 hour trip time so Neroden's 5 hour schedule is rather optimistic.

I pulled up the 1985 schedule for the Michigan trains (page 40) from the TimeTables archive site which shows a 1:50 to 2 hour trip time from Detroit to Toledo so that was a slow part of the route. In 1985, #352 Lake Cities departed CHI at 2:05 PM CT, arrived Toledo 11:08 ET with a connection to #48 at Toledo. #353 departed Toledo 9:45 AM ET, arrived CHI 4:40 PM CT. Link to TimeTables image of 1985 schedule page for the Michigan trains (if this works).

The 7.5 hour total trip time with a slow DET to TOL segment likely held down ridership for the train. With the upgrades in Michigan, maybe that gets cut to 6.5 hours assuming TOL to DET (or where the tracks meet the route to DET) is not much slower than in the 1980s. If both Ohio and Michigan were interested in restoring the service, they could possibly invest state funds to upgrade the NS tracks north of TOL. However, not going to get any support from the state of Ohio as long as Kasich is Governor.


----------



## jis (Nov 5, 2015)

Actually it should be of primary interest to Michigan more than Ohio anyway I would think. Ohio is going to be barren desert as far as rail passenger development goes until the government changes. But that should not prevent adjacent states from getting what they want on their own. Afterall New Hampshire does not fund any of Downeasters either.


----------



## neroden (Nov 5, 2015)

afigg said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > The previous Amtrak Chicago - Detroit - Toledo train was named the Lake Cities AFAIR.
> ...


OK, well, for starters, the Lake Cities ran into Detroit Union Station and back out. Most proposals for a revival would go from Toledo directly to Dearborn.

Second, the Dearborn-Chicago trackage has already been upgraded since 1985. And is being further upgraded to reduce running time.

Thirdly, the timing from Detroit to Toledo was obviously unreasonably slow and fairly minor improvements should be able get it down to roughly an hour. Even if you go all the way to Detroit New Center Station and reverse, it's under 70 miles, and most of it is extremely straight. Even on Class 3 track you could get Dearborn-Toledo down to an hour. All you need is enough sidings to get past the freight traffic -- and there's a lot of room here. And you need to make sure the signalling is up to snuff; none of this yard track business.

So I think five hours Chicago-Toledo is realistic; by the time someone is putting in enough investment to run the train, they can put in enough investment to get the trip time down to that level.

The route is almost entirely in Michigan (less than 10 miles in Ohio, all within Toledo city limits) and the benefit would be almost entirely for Michigan, so I don't see any reason Ohio would need to put money in. Toledo might put in some money for its station.

There are so many possible very similar routes from Toledo to Detroit, Dearborn, or Ann Arbor -- owned by different companies -- that they should actually do a study to figure out what it would take to get each of them up to snuff and which would be best.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 7, 2015)

Now I don't know much about Pontiac but would it make sense if one round trip went to Toledo instead of Pontiac. Could there also be a market between the two that could get a stop in. I see that as a winning idea. And try to time it to connect in Toledo. Seems like a winner.


----------



## neroden (Nov 8, 2015)

afigg said:


> A disadvantage is that, even after the 110 mph upgrades are completed on the Michigan corridor is that it would probably add around 2 hours and roughly 100 miles (IIRC) to the trip between Toledo and Chicago.


It's less than 70 miles from Toledo to Dearborn *via* Detroit New Center. The distance to Chicago from Dearborn is about the same as from Toledo. This *should add only 1 hour*. Figure out what capital improvements are needed.
If it's taking 2 hours, this is due either to traffic interference at junctions, or very low (30 mph or less) track speeds. An analysis should be done to find the bottlenecks and figure out what capital improvements would be needed to get it down to an hour, because *it should only be an hour*.

I think Michigan DOT would have to consult with NS (and perhaps CN, CSX, and Conrail) to figure out what would be needed to get Dearborn-Toledo under an hour. It is definitely possible, but I don't know enough about the traffic flows to know what the congestion points are.


----------



## afigg (Nov 8, 2015)

neroden said:


> It's less than 70 miles from Toledo to Dearborn *via* Detroit New Center. The distance to Chicago from Dearborn is about the same as from Toledo. This *should add only 1 hour*. Figure out what capital improvements are needed.
> 
> If it's taking 2 hours, this is due either to traffic interference at junctions, or very low (30 mph or less) track speeds. An analysis should be done to find the bottlenecks and figure out what capital improvements would be needed to get it down to an hour, because *it should only be an hour*.
> 
> I think Michigan DOT would have to consult with NS (and perhaps CN, CSX, and Conrail) to figure out what would be needed to get Dearborn-Toledo under an hour. It is definitely possible, but I don't know enough about the traffic flows to know what the congestion points are.


According to the Amtrak schedules, it is 234 track miles from CHI to Toledo and 271 track miles from CHI to Dearborn. So add 60 to 70 miles from Toledo to the connection to the Wolverine route on the west side of Detroit and the route through MI to Toledo does add roughly 100 miles over the direct CHI to Toledo route.

Looking at the map, the NS track from Toledo to Detroit is remarkably straight, so there is no need to spend money on curve reductions for faster track speeds. Probably umpteen grade crossings on the route that might have to be upgraded for 79 mph passenger train speeds if that to be the goal. But with the extra distance, the best that can probably be realistically achieved is to add 1.5 hours to the CHI-TOL trip times for a restored Lake Cities service. I not arguing against the concept of restoring a MI to Toledo service (and while we at it, restoring a daily train through Michigan to Toronto), but one should be realistic about the likely trip times.


----------



## NY Penn (Nov 8, 2015)

Why does a train via Detroit/Dearborn need to run to/from Chicago? Suppose, for instance, the Pennsylvanian were extended to Detroit via Toledo. We'll use the 1985 and 2000 timetables for timing and mileage. (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19850428&item=0041 , http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030)

In 2000 the Pennsylvanian left PHL at 6:35am and got to Toledo at 8:30pm. Let's assume this schedule could be maintained today.

In 1985 the Lake Cities took two hours to travel between Detroit and Toledo. Let's assume this could be cut to one hour, as hypothesized above. (Part of these savings might come from the Keystone route as well.)

This would give a train leaving PHL at 6:30am and arriving at DET at 9:30pm. If we extend the train to New York, that adds 90 minutes worst-case. A potential schedule would be the following:

NYP 06:00am 11:00pm
PHL 07:30am 09:30pm
PGH 03:30pm 01:30pm
TOL 09:30pm 07:30am
DET 10:30pm 06:30am
In terms of mileage:

NYP to TOL via the 2000 Pennsylvanian route is 690 miles. TOL to DET via the 1985 Lake Cities route is 58 miles. That gives a total of 748 miles, making it (just barely) eligible for state funding from Michigan. Thoughts?


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2015)

Thought 1: Extend it to the end of the Wolverine route (going north) and you evade the 750 mile limit. This may still be afoul of the "city pair" aspect of PRIIA 209 that we often overlook. Doing so would also allow you to share a yard/turning base with the Wolverines.

Thought 2: Trains over 750 miles aren't "ineligible" for state aid, it just isn't required. If you get the train over the 750-mile line you might be able to still extract some support from MI/PA, but you could also fudge some "national network" support into the picture. You might also need to run a section to Chicago from Toledo (theoretically rendering the train a NYP-CHI train with a Michigan section) but if you can eat the costs of running a few coaches and a snack car along that route, you can risk lousy times in Chicago.

Thought 3: Though those times would be _awful_ (0230 departure from CHI and 1230 arrival into CHI), you might be able to coordinate equipment turns with some other service so as to avoid having to completely "waste" a set of cars. This would depend on options with other trains (as a stand-alone I'm not sure I can massage it enough, but setting up some sort of equipment swap with the Hiawathas or another CHI-hub train to get some use out of the third set of equipment while it's sitting in CHI for 26 hours seems desirable). You really only need two sets on the Michigan leg, but the Chicago leg needs a third due to timing.

Thought 4: Honestly, if you're going to invest in fixing up DET-TOL, you'd probably be better off running a multiple-daily train Detroit-Cleveland (ideally interfacing with 3Cs in some manner). A three-hour run Detroit-Cleveland (what you'd be looking at above) is well-suited to something like a 4x daily frequency (and that would likely only require 2 sets of equipment); depending on traffic estimates, you could simply can the Pontiac-Detroit legs for trains not heading to the yard (even if you'd need an NPCU or cab car to run in push-pull). Even if you need to transfer at Cleveland for 3Cs, both corridors would be short enough to allow for a relatively tight transfer time (not quite Springfield Shuttle tight, but not nearly as loose as LD-to-NEC requires). This feels like a case of "just force a transfer or run through cars".


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2015)

NY Penn said:


> Why does a train via Detroit/Dearborn need to run to/from Chicago? Suppose, for instance, the Pennsylvanian were extended to Detroit via Toledo. We'll use the 1985 and 2000 timetables for timing and mileage. (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19850428&item=0041 , http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030)
> 
> In 2000 the Pennsylvanian left PHL at 6:35am and got to Toledo at 8:30pm. Let's assume this schedule could be maintained today.
> 
> ...


Such a train would be a westbound equivalent of the southbound Palmetto out of New York, and will most likely be very successful, meeting the demand for a daytime train ex-NEC. For operational reasons such a train should probably originate/terminate at Pontiac rather than Detroit. Frankly in terms of travel affinity analysis that I have seen, such a train routed via Albany, Buffalo would probably be even more successful

A Chicago - Pittsburgh day train (not via Dearborn but via South Bend), would make sense too. stretching it to Philly makes for a very late arrival and very early departure, but might still work.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Nov 9, 2015)

jis said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> > Why does a train via Detroit/Dearborn need to run to/from Chicago? Suppose, for instance, the Pennsylvanian were extended to Detroit via Toledo. We'll use the 1985 and 2000 timetables for timing and mileage. (http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19850428&item=0041 , http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=20000521n&item=0030)
> ...


I am not in favor of a long day train. When the Pennsylvanian went CHI-PHL the times were horrible on both ends. Honestly if I had to travel between 9-18 hours I would absolutely rather travel overnight. Who wants to go from 8am in the morning to 10pm at night if you could do 8pm to 10am instead?

The Pennsylvanian from CHI-PHL was a huge failure. They get way more traffic now from just PGH-NYP.

Data from 2004 NARP report in previous post (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66132-michigan-to-toledoeast-coast/?p=631826)

2002 Pennsylvanian: 73,890

2003 Pennsylvanian: 124,372

2004 Pennsylvanian: 168,086

The train west of PGH was canceled in February 2003 (http://www.narprail-org.newsconsultant.net/resources/fact-sheets/2000-trainhistory)

I'm wondering if Amtrak used the failure of the Pennsylvanian as rationale to cancel the Three Rivers a couple of years later.

I'm surprised the Palmetto works. I'd claim it doesn't as its R & R is near the bottom of the LD trains. The one advantage it has is no sleeper service so that does save Amtrak valuable sleeper cars.

CHI-PGH would have to be state funded and one of those states is Ohio so that would have zero chance of happening. The only chance for it happening is to extend it to PHL/NYP and go beyond 750 miles.


----------



## Eric S (Nov 9, 2015)

If you're traveling end point to end point, perhaps overnight *might* be more desirable. But how many passengers are traveling from end to end, or close to it?

If you're traveling from some intermediate stop to another intermediate stop (or intermediate point to/from end point), now 8am to 4pm (or 11am to 3pm) sounds more pleasant than 8pm to 4am (or 11pm to 3am).

And extending a train beyond 750 miles doesn't suddenly mean that money appears with which to operate it. And a "state-supported" train does not need to be supported by every state through which it operates - it just needs some non-federal source of operating funding to cover any deficits, whether that's one state, a collection of states, or (unlikely but possibly) cities/counties. If IL and PA agreed to cover losses for a CHI-PGH train, that's good enough. My point is that I don't see a 751 mile train as being significantly more likely to run than a 749 mile train - some funding source needs to be lined up, either federal or not.


----------



## jis (Nov 9, 2015)

The demand for daytime train service from intermediate points can only best satisfied by what you call long day trains. it does not really matter much that your personal travel needs do not happen to match the services provided by such trains.  You are still too focused on end to end travel. The day trains we are talking of tend to be more about one end to midpoint travel, followed by mid point to mid point travel. that is the nature of day trains. They serve a different purpose from overnight trains.

I wouldn't bemoan Chicago - Pittsburgh day train not happening immediately. I think the New York - Toledo - Detroit train, which is quite feasible, happens via Albany and Buffalo, since traditionally that has been the bigger travel market between the east and Michigan.

The Palmetto is real close to break even unlike many of the LD trains. I think same will be the case with a day train on the route New York - Albany - Buffalo - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit - Pontiac. I suspect it might even do better than Palmetto coming to think of it. I place the Pennsylvanian in the same category of trains, and should probably be rightfully extended to Cleveland if some funding can be finagled from somewhere.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 9, 2015)

jis said:


> The demand for daytime train service from intermediate points can only best satisfied by what you call long day trains. it does not really matter much that your personal travel needs do not happen to match the services provided by such trains.  You are still too focused on end to end travel. The day trains we are talking of tend to be more about one end to midpoint travel, followed by mid point to mid point travel. that is the nature of day trains. They serve a different purpose from overnight trains.
> 
> I wouldn't bemoan Chicago - Pittsburgh day train not happening immediately. I think the New York - Toledo - Detroit train, which is quite feasible, happens via Albany and Buffalo, since traditionally that has been the bigger travel market between the east and Michigan.
> 
> The Palmetto is real close to break even unlike many of the LD trains. I think same will be the case with a day train on the route New York - Albany - Buffalo - Cleveland - Toledo - Detroit - Pontiac. I suspect it might even do better than Palmetto coming to think of it. I place the Pennsylvanian in the same category of trains, and should probably be rightfully extended to Cleveland if some funding can be finagled from somewhere.


Another thing about that train: I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't make sense to run it as a re-route or section of the Maple Leaf (since it seems pretty clear right now that 2-3 coaches and a Cafe/BC are sufficient for service to/from TWO while more is needed east of BUF).


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 9, 2015)

I honestly think routing it via the Waterlevel Route via Albany and Buffalo would be the best choice. The question is what slot would work. We have identified that the Maple Leaf as a train that it could run as a section. But lets make a schedule up for the route west of Buffalo. Bold times are in the afternoon per normal timetable practice.

TR 463

DP Buffalo-*315*

DP Dunkirk *347*

DP Erie *515*

DP Ashtabula, OH *540*

AR Cleveland *700*

DP Cleveland *715*

DP Cleveland Airport

DP Elyria *745*

DP Sandusky *818*

AR Toledo *925 *

DP Toledo *930 *

DP Monroe, MI *956*

DP Trenton, MI *1021*

AR Detroit *1051*

DP Detroit *1055*

DP Royal Oak *1119*

DP Troy *1126*

AR Pontiac *1154*

*TR 464*

DP Pontiac 500

DP Troy 513

DP Royal Oak 520

AR Detroit 540

DP Detroit 544

DP Trenton 614

DP Monroe 639

AR Toledo 705

DP Toledo 710

DP Sandusky 757

DP Elyria 830

DP Cleveland Airport

AR Cleveland 900

DP Cleveland 905

DP Ashtabula 1025

DP Erie 1100

DP Dunkirk *1225*

AR Buffalo *100*

Looking at the departure from Pontiac and Detroit I would be tempted to move the departure back an hour to six from Pontiac and 640 from Detroit. Of course the train then wouldn't be combined with the Maple Leaf from Buffalo. If it ran an hour behind the Maple Leaf it would arrive in NYP around 1050 at night. Not saying that they should or would do something. The train we have proposed from Pontiac could easily take the place of Train No. 351 from Pontiac to Detroit and No. 354 from Detroit to Pontiac. What about rerouting 351, 354 from terminating at Pontiac to Toledo keeping their current time slots west of Detroit. So a Toledo arrival at 128 AM which is similar to it's Pontiac arrival. And a morning departure from Toledo around five in the morning. From looking at the NS timetable for the line it's 50 MPH for freight and that gives a favorable 1h 20 m running time. With a little upgrades it could easily be shaved down. By rerouting the two Wolverines down to Toledo it would make an easier connection for the LSL and CL for Michigan. So there are some wins. Of course we would have to tweak the westbound Wolverine to meet with both trains. The eastbound would still meet the LSL in Toledo, but would miss the CL. So that's food for thought.

The times aren't that bad, I could see it being a very good service, and very Palmetto like. And I used google maps and looked for cities that are similar to Selma, Dillion, and Wilson that are only stops on the Palmetto but not the Silver Meteor. What do you guys think


----------



## afigg (Nov 9, 2015)

Anderson said:


> Another thing about that train: I can't help but wonder if it wouldn't make sense to run it as a re-route or section of the Maple Leaf (since it seems pretty clear right now that 2-3 coaches and a Cafe/BC are sufficient for service to/from TWO while more is needed east of BUF).


Westbound a combined Maple Leaf/Detroit-Pontiac train could work in principle, provided there is a place to the split the train west of or at Buffalo-Depew and the split wouldn't take long. A eastbound latch-up is another matter. A NYP to Detroit/Pontiac train is hitting the limits of a circa 15 to 16 hour maximum trip time for a viable day train (and this only after improvements on the Empire corridor and upgrades to the TOL-DET tracks). Add in a 60 to 90 minute stop to have a buffer for one train being late and connecting them up and the trip time gets very long for a day train. Then what happens if #64 ML get held up an extra hour at the border clearing customs? How are the passengers from CLE, TOL, DET heaed east going to react to sitting in Buffalo for 90 minutes waiting on the eastbound ML? This would be a more tightly scheduled day train, not an overnight LD train with tons of schedule padding.
If there was a way to do it, one solution might be to run as a combined train westbound from NYP to BUF and then do a quick 15 minute split (again provided CSX is willing provide tracks and time to do the split). But eastbound run them as separate trains all the way to NYP so there is no waiting for the other eastbound train and with different schedules set for each train.


----------



## afigg (Nov 9, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> I honestly think routing it via the Waterlevel Route via Albany and Buffalo would be the best choice. The question is what slot would work. We have identified that the Maple Leaf as a train that it could run as a section. But lets make a schedule up for the route west of Buffalo. Bold times are in the afternoon per normal timetable practice.
> 
> TR 463
> 
> ...


What is with Dunkirk, Ashtaabula, Cleveland Airport, etc on your schedule? Are you proposing to add new station stops on the route? All of which would slow down an already barely viable trip time for a day train from NYP to Pontiac. Adding new stations costs significant money.

The LSL has a scheduled 14 hours and 15 minutes trip time from NYP to TOL. That trip time includes an extra 1/2+ hour layover at Albany for connecting to the Boston section. The LSL takes about 30 minutes longer (on the official schedule) for NYP to BUF than the Empire service trains so that is padding that a NYP to BUF to TOL to DET-PNT train won't have. Let's be optimistic and say with the funded improvements on the Empire corridor, the NYP-ALB-TOL trip time can be cut of 13:20. Then add 80 minutes for TOL-DET, then another hour for DET to PNT. That is 15 hours and 40 minutes which is pushing it for a day train which needs a buffer for recovery time for a really late train in addition to crew rest and time to service the train.

One problem with running the NYP-TOL train to Detroit and Pontiac is that it skips Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Kalamazoo. all of which currently have more passengers than DET. However, Michigan is working on a Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter train service. so the commuter train could provide connecting service to Dearborn and Ann Arbor at Detroit for the Pontiac to NYP train.

As for routing 2 Wolverines to Toledo, remember the goal of the Michigan corridor is to provide Chicago-Detroit service. A PNT-DET to NYP day train would provide the direct Cleveland and east coast service that most would use over connecting to the CL & LSL at Toledo. Maybe re-routing one Wolverine from CHI to Dearborn to TOL would work, but with only 3 daily Wolverines that would cut DET to only 2 direct trains to CHI. Running one Wolverine slot to TOL as a restored Lake Cities is easier if additional daily Wolverines were to be added.


----------



## keelhauled (Nov 10, 2015)

IMO the schedule that would benefit the most people would be to run overnight from New York to Cleveland about three hours behind the Lake Shore Limited. If we assume that puts it in Cleveland at about seven, Toledo about nine AM, then it would reach Dearborn at about 10:30. Wolverines are carded for about four hours westbound, which puts you in Chicago at 2:30. Obviously this loses Western connections, but if we assume that the service is primarily for Michigan's benefit, that shouldn't matter, as they have an earlier Wolverine anyway. Eastbound, roughly mirroring the schedule gives you a 1:00ish departure from Chicago, 7:00 at Dearborn, 8:30 at Toledo, 10:45 at Cleveland, and New York at about eleven the next morning. This fills two major gaps in the northeast system--Michigan to the east coast, and palatable times at Cleveland.

The major scheduling problem is it uses 352's slot exactly, and 353's slot roughly. Arbitrarily, I would push 352 to a late morning departure from CHI, and 353 to an early afternoon run from Michigan. It is also completely plausible that running times could be trimmed here and there, 90 minutes Toledo to Dearborn is maybe pessimistic, you can save some time from the LSL's schedule due to a shorter Albany stop, and hopefully Empire Corridor times will be trimmed slightly soon. It would be good to use it to widen the gap between eastbound arrival and westbound departure in NYP. It is of course all pie in the sky, but it's nice to think about.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 10, 2015)

I added the additional cities in mostly in the name of increasing service. Mostly like the Palmetto which calls at town the Meteor or night train skips. That was my reasoning it's a long day. Personally I still prefer making it a night train CLE-NYP. But I see the other route that would be good for a night train being a Three C route. With the night section being NYP-CLE. Either way Ohio gets day service.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 10, 2015)

On the options for this, I'm inclined to run combined WB at least as far as Albany owing to slot issues outbound from NYP (this service does go "upstream" during the morning rush). I might /concievably/ split the service at Albany (since that's a locomotive depot as-is) but I'd be inclined to do something funky with equipment at Buffalo. Perhaps combine with the Maple Leaf WB and then make both 280 (presently ex Su) and 288 (presently Su) daily (with 288 operating as a stub Niagara-Buffalo for equipment rotation purposes). That gets you an obnoxious time into NYP (though the transfer to a sleeper-equipped 66/67 becomes tolerable at that point since you're not stuck in NYP for hours and hours).

Honestly, I'm slightly more inclined to think that your best bet for passable service here is to get a doubled-up service on one of the routes (Water Level, Broadway, or Capitol) and to then start running some connecting trains (3Cs, Detroit, etc.). Ignoring Pontiac, the problem is that Detroit-New York just hangs out a hair too long to quite work as a day train; the Palmetto really only "gets away with it" because you've got a LOT of 70-79 MPH running south of WAS and north of there it's mostly 125 MPH.

Of course, a lot changes if you can get improvements CLE-TOL[-CHI].


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

Seaboard92 said:


> I honestly think routing it via the Waterlevel Route via Albany and Buffalo would be the best choice.


I agree.

I have two friends from Michigan who go home at least once (usually twice) per year. Currently they take Amtrak from Syracuse to Toledo and then the bus. They would, of course, take this train. I would be going for Christmas with them but I don't wanna take a bus that far. So I and my fiancee would be on this train too...

Some anecdotal evidence of the strength of the upstate NY - Michigan travel market. Seems stronger than the Michigan - Pennsyvlania market for whatever reason; historical migration patterns, I guess.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

As you might have noticed, I used the same argument to suggest the NYP - ALB - BUF routing for the train to Toledo - Detroit - Pontiac.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

afigg said:


> One problem with running the NYP-TOL train to Detroit and Pontiac is that it skips Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Kalamazoo. all of which currently have more passengers than DET.


...Another problem is that you just got involved with large amounts of CN trackage. Which is a mistake.



> However, Michigan is working on a Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter train service. so the commuter train could provide connecting service to Dearborn and Ann Arbor at Detroit for the Pontiac to NYP train.


I'd prefer to run the train TOL-Dearborn-Ann Arbor (etc) and use the commuter service to get people from Dearborn to Detroit, should they need to do so.



> Maybe re-routing one Wolverine from CHI to Dearborn to TOL would work, but with only 3 daily Wolverines


....Remember, Michigan is planning to have at least 4 daily Wolverines after the upgrades on the line are completed. (I think the long-term goal was 7?).Once there are lots of frequencies, it becomes easier for more of them to go to Toledo.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

afigg said:


> According to the Amtrak schedules, it is 234 track miles from CHI to Toledo and 271 track miles from CHI to Dearborn. So add 60 to 70 miles from Toledo to the connection to the Wolverine route on the west side of Detroit and the route through MI to Toledo does add roughly 100 miles over the direct CHI to Toledo route.


Ah, got it. However:
234 track miles at 79 mph == 2.96 hours

271 track miles at 90 mph == 3.0 hours

Both routes will run slower than top speed, but you get the point. The Michigan Line is being sped up and the NS Chicago Line isn't.

In actual fact the runtime difference is going to be largely due to the much larger number of stations on the Michigan route -- 10 intermediate stations versus 4. Since all the Michigan Line stations are in actual cities, this is probably a tradeoff worth making... but of course it's possible to skip some of them.



> Looking at the map, the NS track from Toledo to Detroit is remarkably straight, so there is no need to spend money on curve reductions for faster track speeds. Probably umpteen grade crossings on the route that might have to be upgraded for 79 mph passenger train speeds if that to be the goal.


Much of it is grade-separated, but there are a fair number of grade crossings. And you have to do all four tracks, which may be on up to three different signalling systems, which makes it a pain.
Most of the problems I would expect actually would be freight traffic interference, so there might be additional signalling and siding work required. I'd expect basically the whole route would need resignalling, and that would be the bulk of the cost.



> But with the extra distance, the best that can probably be realistically achieved is to add 1.5 hours to the CHI-TOL trip times for a restored Lake Cities service. I not arguing against the concept of restoring a MI to Toledo service (and while we at it, restoring a daily train through Michigan to Toronto), but one should be realistic about the likely trip times.


The shortest Dearborn-Toledo route is 59 miles. 8 miles of that is slow (maybe 30 mph), and 2 miles from Dearborn to the curves isn't enough time to get up to speed. So call it 10 miles at 30 mph and 49 miles at 80 mph. I get 56.75 minutes -- leave room for acceleration and deceleration and call it an hour even.

I say you can get the trip time down to 1 hour more than the trip times on the current route if you only make four stops in Michigan, or 1 1/2 hours more if you do all ten stops. All the Michigan Line improvements need to be finished and you need to resignal Detroit-Toledo and possibly redo some junctions, which is expensive. Something will probably have to be done to improve the Trail Creek Bridge in Michigan City. And honestly you probably need South of the Lake to really make it all worthwhile.

-----

The value of the one-hour Dearborn-Toledo connection to Michigan is significant. It would probably attract local passengers from Ann Arbor to Toledo, even though it's longer than driving (not all college students have cars). Which is why I figure the priority should be to revive the Lake Cities -- get it on the State of Michigan's to-do list.

It seems straightforward arrange it to make connections with the LSL and CL at Toledo, which allows for the Michigan - NY traffic and the Michigan-PA/WAS traffic.

Michigan is also investigating a Holland-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Howell - (Ann Arbor or Detroit) route. This would be an even better route to extend to Toledo.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

keelhauled said:


> IMO the schedule that would benefit the most people would be to run overnight from New York to Cleveland about three hours behind the Lake Shore Limited....
> 
> The major scheduling problem is it uses 352's slot exactly, and 353's slot roughly. Arbitrarily, I would push 352 to a late morning departure from CHI, and 353 to an early afternoon run from Michigan.


We get similar scheduling problems if we try to run an independent Lake Cities connecting to the LSL & CL at Toledo; it lands square in the slot of an existing train to Pontiac, which then has to be shifted around to some other slot.
So I think the thing to do is to try to come up with some (multiple) conceptual scheduling ideas (and by conceptual I mean vague, just getting the "this has to connect with this, this has to arrive before 9 AM" type stuff") work out the obvious bugs (we can't figure out what CN or NS will complain about, but we can predict other sorts of complaints about schedule). Then we can present them to Michigan DOT for future inclusion in their long-range rail plan, or to Amtrak for future ridership studies, or whatever..


----------



## Seaboard92 (Nov 11, 2015)

The only problem I see with combining the Maple Leaf to the Lake Cities is the same problem the Lake Shore Limited has. It's constantly having to make double spots, and losing time because of that. I honestly see this NYP-DET market almost worthy of a night train and a day train. The night train running NYP-BUF at night. And the rest in daylight. I think we could come up with several timetables. Which station has better ridership Detroit or Dearborn? I was surprised with how short the platform in Detroit is.


----------



## jis (Nov 11, 2015)

We may wish to get hold of Bruce Becker and the ESPA gang (if they happen to be awake that is) to play the New York angle of the East Coast to Michigan service. I can't think of anyone credible in Pennsylvania off the top of my head right now, but as I said I think the via NY State routing holds more immediate promise anyway, and also minor scheduling challenges in conjunction with the Empire Service.

I suppose the NYP - BUF at night could be the sort of slot that the old Niagara Rainbow overnight New York - Toronto service had for a short while. It also add s a consistent late evening departure out of New York into the Empire Corridor time table.


----------



## neroden (Nov 11, 2015)

ESPA's not functional right now. Website not working for months means it's not a functioning organization. I'm sorry I don't have the brain energy to revive it right now, there's a lot in my personal life occupying it.


----------

