# Amtrak reroutes



## railgeekteen (Mar 26, 2018)

Not expansions, or cuts, just reroutes

Capitol Limited to Youngstown

Sunset Limited to Phoenix


----------



## Thirdrail7 (Mar 26, 2018)

What are we using as criteria for reroutes? Are we just forcing Amtrak's presence on to someone's territory? Do track conditions and speeds enter into this equation? Do the tracks have to still exist?

Details, please.


----------



## Ryan (Mar 26, 2018)

Every train, every city. Just run them all in a big loop.

One seat rides for everyone.


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 26, 2018)

Thirdrail7 said:


> What are we using as criteria for reroutes? Are we just forcing Amtrak's presence on to someone's territory? Do track conditions and speeds enter into this equation? Do the tracks have to still exist?
> 
> Details, please.


Tracks need to exist. Let's keep this somewhat realistic.


----------



## jis (Mar 26, 2018)

Just any darned track? Or something that is vaguely usable within the context of current Amtrak connectivity?


----------



## railgeekteen (Mar 26, 2018)

jis said:


> Just any darned track? Or something that is vaguely usable within the context of current Amtrak connectivity?


Vaguely useful.


----------



## Anthony V (Mar 26, 2018)

For the SL to serve Phoenix again, the tracks west of there would need significant rehabilitation work done before they'll be usable for passenger trains again. It depends on how much UP wants Amtrak off that part of the Sunset Route. That being said, UP _has_ done some work on the line west of Phoenix, and a UP employee has said that they hope to someday reopen the entire Welton branch, thus allowing Amtrak to once again serve Phoenix.


----------



## Lonestar648 (Mar 27, 2018)

The Phoenix reroute would certainly increase ridership. I remember stopping in Phoenix with quite a number of people getting on and off.


----------



## jis (Mar 27, 2018)

Moving the Cap to call at Youngstown (instead of Alliance) involves rebuilding a connection from CSX to NS at Ravenna, for which of course, currently there is no money, and there probably won;t be any unless Ohio contributes some.


----------



## railiner (Mar 27, 2018)

jis said:


> Moving the Cap to call at Youngstown (instead of Alliance) involves rebuilding a connection from CSX to NS at Ravenna, for which of course, currently there is no money, and there probably won;t be any unless Ohio contributes some.


Is that "rebuilding", the route that they moved The Broadway Limited to years ago from the former PRR to the former B&O?


----------



## jis (Mar 27, 2018)

railiner said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > Moving the Cap to call at Youngstown (instead of Alliance) involves rebuilding a connection from CSX to NS at Ravenna, for which of course, currently there is no money, and there probably won;t be any unless Ohio contributes some.
> ...


The Youngstown Station that was used by the Broadway when it was moved to CSX is the one that would be used by such a rerouted Cap. It would travel on CSX using the link between NS (ex-PRR) and CSX (ex-B&O) that was put in to move the Broadway from the Fort Wayne Line to CSX at New Castle PA AFAIR, That link still exists and does not need rebuilding. It would then call at the Youngstown station and then move back to NS to Cleveland at Ravenna. That is the link that needs rebuilding. That is the last plan that I saw.


----------



## railiner (Mar 27, 2018)

What about the old Erie line thru Warren...is that still there?


----------



## jis (Mar 27, 2018)

railiner said:


> What about the old Erie line thru Warren...is that still there?


Yes. Through Warren it is now a short line called Warren and Trumbull Railroad. It is another short line east of Warren to the vicinity of Youngstown. It is abandoned east of Youngstown as far as I can tell, though I may be reading the map wrong. If you want to verify get a copy of the Great Lakes East volume of SPV's Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America and look at the map page OH-16.


----------



## railiner (Mar 27, 2018)

That line served one of the last, if not The last, commuter train that Conrail operated, weekdays between Youngstown, and the Terminal Tower in Cleveland...


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 2, 2018)

Texas Eagle through Waco is a no brainer.


----------



## railiner (Apr 3, 2018)

Or the Silver Meteor via the Florida East Coast Ry...


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2018)

railiner said:


> Or the Silver Meteor via the Florida East Coast Ry...


Needs new track connection to get it to Amtrak Station in Miami.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 3, 2018)

jis said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Or the Silver Meteor via the Florida East Coast Ry...
> ...


I think I read an article a few weeks ago about a track connection being built in West Palm Beach, although it did not mention any possibility of Amtrak operating over it. Even if this is built and Amtrak gains trackage rights, I believe that Orlando ridership is too high to reroute the entire SM away from it. Meanwhile, Tampa is underserved and ridership from Orlando to South Florida will be served by Brightline. Therefore, if trackage rights could be secured I think the best solution it to split both the SS and SM in Jacksonville and have an FEC section as well as an Orlando and Tampa section (that continues to Miami). This would obviously require track improvements and new stations on the FEC as well as approval from CSX for two additional round-trips from Auburndale to Tampa.


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2018)

As soon as we start talking of FECR we get entangled in both Brightline and TriRail plans. So in a nutshell, the following will have potential impact on Amtrak in Florida:

1. TriRail plans extension of service from West Palm Beach to at least Jupiter using a new northbound connection from TriRail to FECR just north of West Palm Beach (both TriRail and Brightline). This crossover would be the one that a potential Amtrak train routed over FECR would use to get back to TriRail to reach its Miami and related stations. The crossover has EIS and design done, but no construction yet. The crossover that was recently completed is in the southbound direction at the FECR end.

2. Brightline intends to consider extending service from Cocoa to Jacksonville soon after service to Orlando is stabilized. This will likely upgrade the trackage to 110mph and add stations at at least Daytona and St. Augustine, and of course Jacksonville at the Convention Center. Whether an extension to Jacksonville will come first or one to Tampa will come first is yet to be determined.

3. Brightline intends to consider extending service from Orlando to Tampa at some point. If that happens then most likely Amtrak ridership within Florida will collapse. What impact that will have on Amtrak LD service within Florida is hard to figure out at present. Certainly there will still be the need for a train to serve Orlando and Tampa from out of state, but the imperative for serving the Tampa - Orlando - Miami Corridor will disappear. This might cause a total rethink of how to serve Florida at that point.

Lots of ifs and the timeline is fluid beyond Orlando.


----------



## railiner (Apr 3, 2018)

I have not been following developments in Florida...wow! Now there are three passenger railroads serving South Florida? (Not counting transit)....


----------



## jis (Apr 3, 2018)

railiner said:


> I have not been following developments in Florida...wow! Now there are three passenger railroads serving South Florida? (Not counting transit)....


Yes. And if you throw in Central Florida as in Orlando then there is Orlando Sunrail too at the other end of the Brightline, hopefully to share a station some day at the Airport. But who knows? This is Florida where it has been alleged that land is sometimes sold in gallons rather than acres.


----------



## neroden (Apr 11, 2018)

jis said:


> Moving the Cap to call at Youngstown (instead of Alliance) involves rebuilding a connection from CSX to NS at Ravenna, for which of course, currently there is no money, and there probably won;t be any unless Ohio contributes some.


Frankly, doing anything at all which improves service in Ohio requires money from Ohio. If there is money from Ohio, then rebuilding the Ravenna connection is not a big deal. If there isn't, you can't get so much as a daily Cardinal.


----------



## neroden (Apr 11, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> Not expansions, or cuts, just reroutes


The most likely reroute, because it's already in the Illinois state plan: reroute the Texas Eagle and Lincoln Service from Joliet to Chicago over the government-owned Rock Island line.

The one I want: have Michigan buy the Toledo-Detroit line and reroute the CL and LSL over it.

One which almost happened: reroute the Texas Eagle from Austin to San Antonio as part of the planned commuter rail line... which was killed by anti-rail politicians

One which did happen: the reroute of the Texas Eagle over the TRE between Dallas and Fort Worth

One which could happen with a little money for a connection: reroute the Cardinal from Charlottesville north and save a lot of time

One which would increase ridership and revenue but is politically unlikely: reroute the SW Chief between Albuquerque, Amarillo, and Wichita


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 11, 2018)

neroden said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > Not expansions, or cuts, just reroutes
> ...


The one bad thing about reroute all trains via Detroit is losing service to downtown South Bend.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 11, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> neroden said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


Trains don't stop in Downtown South Bend, but I agree that service should not be cut to South Bend, Elkhart, Waterloo, and Bryan. In addition to losing nearly 75,000 passengers per year (although some would use alternate stations), the schedule would be lengthened by about 2 hours. In an ideal situation, the Wolverine corridor would have expended frequencies so current service to Pontiac can be maintained while 2-3 frequencies per day could turn south at Detroit to Toledo with connections going east and 1-2 frequencies continuing under the river to Windsor and Toronto. This will probably never happen, but I think it would be very successful if the funding could be located.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan (Apr 12, 2018)

I wouldn't reroute both the CL and LSL via Michigan but certainly one of them is reasonable (or just start a third train CHI-NEC train via PGH-PHL via Michigan).


----------



## railiner (Apr 13, 2018)

Before doing anything as radical as rerouting existing thru trains from the East via the slower route thru Michigan....I would suggest reviving the "Lake Cities"....a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo train with cross platform connections at Toledo...only loss would be from Detroit to Pontiac for the one train...


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 13, 2018)

railiner said:


> Before doing anything as radical as rerouting existing thru trains from the East via the slower route thru Michigan....I would suggest reviving the "Lake Cities"....a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo train with cross platform connections at Toledo...only loss would be from Detroit to Pontiac for the one train...


Why does Amtrak go to Pontiac? Why not Flint?


----------



## railiner (Apr 14, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Before doing anything as radical as rerouting existing thru trains from the East via the slower route thru Michigan....I would suggest reviving the "Lake Cities"....a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo train with cross platform connections at Toledo...only loss would be from Detroit to Pontiac for the one train...
> ...


They go to Flint (The Blue Water from Chicago)....but I'm assuming you mean the trains via Detroit....

I don't know exactly why, but it may be that there is no suitable place to 'park' or service the trains in Flint.....and if you're asking why not Flint...then why not Bay City...or anywhere, 'upstate'?


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 14, 2018)

railiner said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > railiner said:
> ...


Pontiac just seems like a weird place to end a train. It would be like ending the Silver Star at Bridgeport.


----------



## railiner (Apr 15, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


I agree somewhat...just guessing that it has a convenient place to store, service, and maintain trains that works better than downtown Detroit....


----------



## CAQuail (Apr 16, 2018)

The Pontiac extension allows Amtrak to serve Troy and Royal Oak as well as Pontiac. The three Oakland County stops had 71,163 passengers use them in 2017, mostly at Troy and Royal Oak. Oakland county is the wealthiest county in Michigan and as such a good source of potential traffic. I think it is fair to say that these passengers are less likely to use Amtrak if they have to drive to Dearborn or Detroit.


----------



## neroden (Apr 16, 2018)

railiner said:


> Before doing anything as radical as rerouting existing thru trains from the East via the slower route thru Michigan....I would suggest reviving the "Lake Cities"....a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo train with cross platform connections at Toledo...only loss would be from Detroit to Pontiac for the one train...


The key for any such proposal (and I don't really care which one) is that Michigan would have to purchase and upgrade at least one of the four Toledo-Detroit tracks, since they're currently undermaintained and have very low speed limits. :-( Until that's seriously under consideration, it's not a viable proposal sadly.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 16, 2018)

CAQuail said:


> The Pontiac extension allows Amtrak to serve Troy and Royal Oak as well as Pontiac. The three Oakland County stops had 71,163 passengers use them in 2017, mostly at Troy and Royal Oak. Oakland county is the wealthiest county in Michigan and as such a good source of potential traffic. I think it is fair to say that these passengers are less likely to use Amtrak if they have to drive to Dearborn or Detroit.


Why do no other Amtrak trains extend through the suburbs though?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 16, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> CAQuail said:
> 
> 
> > The Pontiac extension allows Amtrak to serve Troy and Royal Oak as well as Pontiac. The three Oakland County stops had 71,163 passengers use them in 2017, mostly at Troy and Royal Oak. Oakland county is the wealthiest county in Michigan and as such a good source of potential traffic. I think it is fair to say that these passengers are less likely to use Amtrak if they have to drive to Dearborn or Detroit.
> ...


There are a few other examples of trains extending past a city into the suburbs or nearby towns. For example, the Downeaster continues through Portland to Brunswick, the Vermonter continues through Burlington/Essex Junction to St. Albans, some Capitol Corridor trains continue past Sacramento to Auburn, and the Empire Service trains that operate west of Albany continue through Buffalo to Niagara Falls.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 16, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > CAQuail said:
> ...


Well St. Albans was left over from the Montrealer days.


----------



## E60JPC (Apr 16, 2018)

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> railgeekteen said:
> 
> 
> > CAQuail said:
> ...


And Pacific Surfliners that run through Santa Barbara to suburban Goleta.


----------



## railgeekteen (Apr 16, 2018)

E60JPC said:


> brianpmcdonnell17 said:
> 
> 
> > railgeekteen said:
> ...


But the route goes much further north.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 18, 2018)

neroden said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > Before doing anything as radical as rerouting existing thru trains from the East via the slower route thru Michigan....I would suggest reviving the "Lake Cities"....a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo train with cross platform connections at Toledo...only loss would be from Detroit to Pontiac for the one train...
> ...


But at least Michigan has a history of buying track. Don’t they now own everything from Kalamazoo to the Indiana state line on the way to Chicago?

That said, they are probably more interested spending their money on a Detroit-Ann Arbor commuter line and/or restoring some sort of Detroit - Lansing - Grand Rapids service.

As a Michigan native (although I live in IN now) I would love to see them add a third CHI-NY train routed through MI. In my opinion, if they had the equipment it would be a no brainer, and would probably be as successful as the LSL.

Michigan has great connections to western and southern trains through Chicago, but east coast connections are non-existent. There’s a lot of potential to pick up east coast bound ridership - with medium sized cities all along the route (Kalamazoo-Battle Creek-Jackson-Ann Arbor) & of course there’s Detroit.

That’s a lot more added ridership potential than a third train through South Bend and Elkhart.


----------



## railiner (Apr 19, 2018)

I might agree with that, if they could get the running time close to that of Chicago-Toledo via Elkhart, otherwise, I would stand by my suggestion of just extending an existing Michigan train to Toledo and time it to make the connections....and they could do that now, without adding another train...


----------



## CAQuail (Apr 19, 2018)

The State owns the line from Dearborn (I believe Town Line CP is the eastern end of the State's ownership) to Kalamazoo. From Kalamazoo to Porter Indiana the line is owned by Amtrak.


----------



## SarahZ (Apr 19, 2018)

railgeekteen said:


> CAQuail said:
> 
> 
> > The Pontiac extension allows Amtrak to serve Troy and Royal Oak as well as Pontiac. The three Oakland County stops had 71,163 passengers use them in 2017, mostly at Troy and Royal Oak. Oakland county is the wealthiest county in Michigan and as such a good source of potential traffic. I think it is fair to say that these passengers are less likely to use Amtrak if they have to drive to Dearborn or Detroit.
> ...


Detroit is a bit of an anomaly in that the majority of the population lives in the suburbs rather than downtown, so the extension is necessary (especially since Detroit doesn’t have regional rail like Metra, MARC, etc).


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 20, 2018)

railiner said:


> I might agree with that, if they could get the running time close to that of Chicago-Toledo via Elkhart, otherwise, I would stand by my suggestion of just extending an existing Michigan train to Toledo and time it to make the connections....and they could do that now, without adding another train...


Except it is a overnight train. Two hours extra time on an overnight train is not a big deal. You can easily adjust the departure time by two hours to arrive at the destination in the desired time window.

And a cross platform connection at zero-dark-thirty in Toledo for Michigan passengers is infinitely less attractive than a one-seat ride, and ticket sales will reflect that.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 20, 2018)

IndyLions said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > I might agree with that, if they could get the running time close to that of Chicago-Toledo via Elkhart, otherwise, I would stand by my suggestion of just extending an existing Michigan train to Toledo and time it to make the connections....and they could do that now, without adding another train...
> ...


Just because it is an overnight train doesn't mean two hours doesn't matter. Most people on LD trains travel relatively short distances, such as Chicago to Toledo, which would be severely harmed by such a change. Even for overnight passengers, it could make a big difference. For example, one trip I'm planning on taking in the future is a long weekend trip from Chicago to Upstate New York, and with only one overnight at the destination would be much less attractive if my time there was cut short by 4 hours.


----------



## IndyLions (Apr 21, 2018)

I’ll grant you it would be much better as an addition instead of a re-route.


----------



## LookingGlassTie (Apr 21, 2018)

I would say reroute either the Silver Star or the Crescent to Augusta, GA and provide thruway bus service for the other route. In other words, if the Star is rerouted, the bus would run between Gainsville, GA and Augusta (for the Crescent). Likewise, if the Crescent is rerouted, the bus would run between Augusta and Denmark, SC (for the Star).

I know that this would require upgrading the RR infrastructure between Augusta and both Denmark, SC and Gainsville, GA (the two closest Amtrak stops to Augusta), but.................


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Apr 22, 2018)

LookingGlassTie said:


> I would say reroute either the Silver Star or the Crescent to Augusta, GA and provide thruway bus service for the other route. In other words, if the Star is rerouted, the bus would run between Gainsville, GA and Augusta (for the Crescent). Likewise, if the Crescent is rerouted, the bus would run between Augusta and Denmark, SC (for the Star).
> 
> I know that this would require upgrading the RR infrastructure between Augusta and both Denmark, SC and Gainsville, GA (the two closest Amtrak stops to Augusta), but.................


I don't think it would be worth the huge infrastructure improvements and additional runtime, especially for the Crescent. If Augusta is to gain service, it should be via a new train.


----------



## jis (Apr 22, 2018)

Realistically, Augusta is best served by a Thruway bus. The infrastructure cost to get a train there without adversely affecting the train for everyone else is completely unreasonable.


----------



## dogbert617 (Aug 18, 2018)

railiner said:


> Before doing anything as radical as rerouting existing thru trains from the East via the slower route thru Michigan....I would suggest reviving the "Lake Cities"....a Chicago-Detroit-Toledo train with cross platform connections at Toledo...only loss would be from Detroit to Pontiac for the one train...


I like the idea of reviving the Lake Cities train, myself. Even though that'd mean that Toledo bound trains would have to cut off the Pontiac-Chicago line after Dearborn IIRC, it wouldn't be bad to bring back that train. Also, I think it'd be nice to have 1 through car sleeper and 1 through car coach that'd be hooked/unhooked at Toledo, to connect onto the Lake Cities through Michigan(or outbound going east onto the eastbound LSL). Also it'd be a ridership hit, if LSL no longer stopped at South Bend and Elkhart.

And as for the person who talked about downtown South Bend, I'd personally like to see Amtrak train service in South Bend moved from the former South Shore Line station(where the SSL served between the 70s and 90s, before it was rerouted to South Bend airport), to the unused South Bend Union Station. The inside of the building appeared to be restored the last time I was in South Bend(and I think are now used as offices when I peered inside that building?), but I would not be surprised if the platforms would need to be rebuilt for that to occur. And it'd work well, since the local city public transit bus agency(Transpo) has their main central bus terminal a block away from the former South Bend Union Station. Also South Bend's downtown seems to slowly be coming back, with also the South Bend Cubs playing across the street. And there's also plans for Bare Hands Brewery(currently has a taproom in Granger, IN), to open a taproom across the street from the SB Cubs stadium.


----------



## IndyLions (Aug 26, 2018)

Would losing South Bend and Elkhart really be that big of a hit? They’ve already got the Capitol Limited that runs on nearly the same schedule.

I’ve ridden that train (LSL) out of that station multiple times - there’s been solid but unspectacular ridership at least when I rode it. And there’s a lot more total population along the MI route than IN.

Kalamazoo, Battle Creek, Ann Arbor, Dearborn, Detroit offers a lot more ridership potential than Elkhart & South Bend - especially when you consider 75% of the current IN riders would probably take the CL and transfer.


----------



## neroden (Sep 15, 2018)

I think there's a solid business case for rerouting the LSL (not the CL) on the Michigan line. Or for running a second train 12 hours off of the LSL schedule, and running that on the Michigan line. Or for restoring a Michigan service train which goes from Dearborn to Toledo instead of to Pontiac, connecting to the Lake Shore Limited.

Any of the above. A real study using real avoidable-cost numbers could show which was best, but Amtrak can't even generate real avoidable-cost numbers for the existing operations, because their accouting is borked.


----------



## railiner (Sep 15, 2018)

If you were going to run one of the two trains via the Michigan line, I would rather it not be the Lake Shore (for personal reason's). I would rather keep the Lake Shore where it is.

I still think it would be better to just run one of the Pontiac trains from Dearborn to Toledo, and make a cross-platform connection, like the former Lake Cities did...


----------



## ehbowen (Sep 15, 2018)

railiner said:


> If you were going to run one of the two trains via the Michigan line, I would rather it not be the Lake Shore (for personal reason's). I would rather keep the Lake Shore where it is.
> 
> I still think it would be better to just run one of the Pontiac trains from Dearborn to Toledo, and make a cross-platform connection, like the former Lake Cities did...


"Can't we do both?"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K4sXozt0zk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0K4sXozt0zk


----------



## dgvrengineer (Sep 15, 2018)

railiner said:


> If you were going to run one of the two trains via the Michigan line, I would rather it not be the Lake Shore (for personal reason's). I would rather keep the Lake Shore where it is.
> 
> I still think it would be better to just run one of the Pontiac trains from Dearborn to Toledo, and make a cross-platform connection, like the former Lake Cities did...


You could run the Chicago - Detroit trains all the way to Pontiac if you have a cab control car on the rear. At Pontiac just change ends and run straight to Toledo without stopping again at the Detroit station. As of early this year, the diamonds were still intact to run straight across the Conrail Shared Assets main line and straight to Toledo.


----------



## railiner (Sep 15, 2018)

dgvrengineer said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > If you were going to run one of the two trains via the Michigan line, I would rather it not be the Lake Shore (for personal reason's). I would rather keep the Lake Shore where it is.
> ...


Sure you could do that....but how much longer would that take? And how much traffic would you lose by not going to Pontiac on that one daily train?


----------

