Amtrak ConnectUS Announcement and Detailed Document

[railiner]

Amtrak won't even run the Maple Leaf 'closed doors' Buffalo to Toronto, without the participation of VIA (or maybe GO) beyond the border, so I strongly doubt they would ever consider running their own train all the way from Detroit or Port Huron to Toronto, without VIA's participation...

 

[railiner]

PA runs several commuter routes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh

All commuter trains serving Pittsburgh's three terminals ended decades ago...

 

[jis]

I believe those cities will get better service but the question is will the state of PA put their money behind Amtrak or SEPTA for new routes? PA runs several commuter routes around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. As for PHL I can see Amtrak adding another Harrisburg -Philadelphia train but Allentown and Reading might be more attractive for the state to put their money into SEPTA.

Pittsburgh has not had any commuter service for many decades now.

Any Philadlephi - Harrisburg additional frequency will have to be funded by PA, as will proposed new service to Reading. Allentown is proposed from New York anyway, not from Philadelphia. Amtrak might have to struggle to figure out how to get funding out of NJ for that since it runs mostly in NJ Allentown and Scranton both will face similar issues for ongoing operating funding after the federal seed time is over.

 

[jiml]

Amtrak won't even run the Maple Leaf 'closed doors' Buffalo to Toronto, without the participation of VIA (or maybe GO) beyond the border, so I strongly doubt they would ever consider running their own train all the way from Detroit or Port Huron to Toronto, without VIA's participation...

The Maple Leaf makes stops because it is a VIA train and their only service on that route. I'd suggest Amtrak would be delighted if passengers could easily transfer to another service at Niagara Falls for intermediate stops and the Maple Leaf ran non-stop to Toronto (or not into Canada at all). From the timekeeping perspective alone, this would benefit Amtrak. After C&I issues, the number one complaint about the International was it was a milk run, hitting every Podunk little town in Southwestern Ontario. I doubt there was ever much traffic between points in the US and Wyoming (ON), Strathroy and St. Mary's. The problem was it slotted in place of a VIA Sarnia - Toronto milk run.

 

[jis]

The issue frankly boils down to how acceptable it will be for an American outfit to fund extended operation of a train in Canada.

We know that NY State chooses to fund operation fo the Adirondack to Montreal, but that is a relatively short run to th convenient terminus to turn the train, for which there is really no good turning point within the US on its route.

Runningall the way from Michigan border to Toronto is a completely different kettle of fish. Would Michigan be willing to fund it? Even new York does not wish to fund the Maple Leaf in Canada, and Niagara Falls to Toronto is a much shorter distance. Frankly I do not see an American entity funded non stop Michigan border to Toronto train coming to pass, and that implicitly leads to some sort of VIA participation and funding. Indeed Amtrak's document mentions VIA as a partner in that train's description.

 

[jiml]

Indeed Amtrak's document mentions VIA as a partner in that train's description.

Along with a few other interesting "potential hosts".

 

[jis]

Along with a few other interesting "potential hosts".

I suspect that not too many of the hosts are capable of providing OBS like VIA is though. Of course given the Amtrak of today, they may not have any qualms of saying we'll have CP and CN run the train but no OBS.

 

[railiner]

The issue frankly boils down to how acceptable it will be for an American outfit to fund extended operation of a train in Canada.

We know that NY State chooses to fund operation fo the Adirondack to Montreal, but that is a relatively short run to th convenient terminus to turn the train, for which there is really no good turning point within the US on its route.

Runningall the way from Michigan border to Toronto is a completely different kettle of fish. Would Michigan be willing to fund it? Even new York does not wish to fund the Maple Leaf in Canada, and Niagara Falls to Toronto is a much shorter distance. Frankly I do not see an American entity funded non stop Michigan border to Toronto train coming to pass, and that implicitly leads to some sort of VIA participation and funding. Indeed Amtrak's document mentions VIA as a partner in that train's description.

Exactly. The only time Amtrak funded a train across Canada, was the Niagara Rainbow, between Buffalo and Detroit. In that case, they even carried locally a few stops within Ontario, since there was no other service on that route. The same for the VIA trains that crossed parts of the US, like the Atlantic Limited which carried within Maine, and the Thunder Bay to Winnipeg train across Minnesota...

 

[jiml]

At one time there were three railroads serving Windsor through to Detroit. The oft-quoted 1952 Guide has several trains each from CN, CP and CSO (New York Central) - the original owner of the Detroit River tunnel. The current enlarged version has two parallel bores, so should be able to accommodate a couple of daily passenger trains no problem. The newer CN one is a single.

The only time Amtrak funded a train across Canada, was the Niagara Rainbow, between Buffalo and Detroit. In that case, they even carried locally a few stops within Ontario, since there was no other service on that route.

The frequently-discussed and partly abandoned Canso sub.

The same for the VIA trains that crossed parts of the US, like the Atlantic Limited which carried within Maine, and the Thunder Bay to Winnipeg train across Minnesota...

Back in the day when the two countries actually liked each other. There's a fairly recent video on YouTube regarding the continuing freight traffic on the TB - Winnipeg route and just how informal the formalities are. Nothing to do with Amtrak, but Northwestern Ontario remains a priority for restored passenger service.

 

[Willbridge]

Looking over the proposed map….why not extend the proposed front range corridor from Pueblo down to La Junta?

It's under study the other way -- routing the SWC via Pueblo or running a Colorado Springs section of the SWC from Chicago.

 

[Palmetto]

Does anyone here actually believe this will all come to fruition? I don't, given the circus that's currently going on with the proposed Gulf Coast service that everyone ballyhooed a few years ago when Amtrak ran a train all the way over to Jacksonville. Ohio? DOA in my estimation. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm not hopeful for a lot of routes that show on the map. Meanwhile, the Front Range is not connected to Amtrak's transcon route. Go figure.

 

[MARC Rider]

Meanwhile, the Front Range is not connected to Amtrak's transcon route. Go figure.

What, the California Zephyr is no longer a "transcon Route?"

 

[jis]

What, the California Zephyr is no longer a "transcon Route?"

Interestingly, since Amtrak Day the CZ and before that the SFZ have never faced outright cancellation AFAIR. It has been down to thrice a week, specially west of Denver or SLC a few times, but never outright cancellation threat.

OTOH the SWC and before that the SWL went through several rounds of threats of outright cancellation, or more recently, destruction through segmentation.

So one could argue that it is the CZ which is the more stable transcon route.

 

[jimdex]

Runningall the way from Michigan border to Toronto is a completely different kettle of fish. Would Michigan be willing to fund it?

I think the assumption here is that the Canadian portion of this route would basically be one of VIA's existing Windsor-Toronto runs. So it might be that the only extra cost would be the link between Detroit and Windsor.

 

[jimdex]

Does anyone here actually believe this will all come to fruition? I don't, given the circus that's currently going on with the proposed Gulf Coast service that everyone ballyhooed a few years ago when Amtrak ran a train all the way over to Jacksonville. Ohio?

It's certainly a longshot. It's possible suppose that some of these lines will come to fruition one way or another.

 

[jis]

I think the assumption here is that the Canadian portion of this route would basically be one of VIA's existing Windsor-Toronto runs. So it might be that the only extra cost would be the link between Detroit and Windsor.

As I said, there are two possibilities:

1. Simply figure out and do the capital investment to get the train from Detroit to Windsor, and then it becomes a VIA train. This involves some time and a significant amount of capital funding in Canada, so some source of Canadian funding has to be found. Given the gymnastics it has taken tog et Canadian funding for the Customs and Immigration facility at Montreal Central station, it would appear to be a significant challenge to get there.

2. Figure out a way to get the train from Detroit to Chatham on CP which takes no capital investment, only an operational arrangement. At Chatham let it become a VIA train either self standing or by simply hitching onto the rear of a Windsor - Toronto train. This miht be easier to achieve if an agreement can be struck with CP for conveyance of the train Chatham and then for VIA to take it over there.

 

[Palmetto]

What, the California Zephyr is no longer a "transcon Route?"

Let me be clearer. There is an obvious gap on the map between Pueblo and La Junta.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.

The President has shown he's supportive but with a 50/50 Senate the vast majority of potential legislation will be locked into a perpetual stalemate. This will likely change in 2022 when more aggressive gerrymandering will flip Congress.

 

[chrsjrcj]

Even if Amtrak gets the money, they still have to work with state DOTs. I could see it working out with existing partners plus Colorado, but hard to believe it will happen elsewhere.

 

[jis]

Let me clearer. There is an obvious gap on the map between Pueblo and La Junta.

There is a plan afoot to reroute the Transcon via Pueblo pushed by the same Colorado Front Range folks too. If that comes to pass then a connection between the two would become feasible. In any case, this map is not anywhere near the last word only any of these routes and their final structure, or even end points. It is one that is drawn purely by projecting the main urban population centers onto the current route map. The method used to arrive at it is explained quite completely in the more detailed document that goes with it.

 

[jiml]

2. Figure out a way to get the train from Detroit to Chatham on CP which takes no capital investment, only an operational arrangement. At Chatham let it become a VIA train either self standing or by simply hitching onto the rear of a Windsor - Toronto train. This miht be easier to achieve if an agreement can be struck with CP for conveyance of the train Chatham and then for VIA to take it over there.

While I think this makes total sense, the "Achilles' heel" of joining two trains eastbound at Chatham (or London) will be timekeeping. Key to this would be Canadian Customs pre-clearance in Detroit before departure - something that to-date has not happened despite opportunities to implement it elsewhere. With the duration of a C&I inspection performed enroute in Canada being both variable and unknown, the chances of both trains arriving at the connection point within minutes of each other are not good. A border delay could have VIA waiting for Amtrak (good luck with that), whereas a light Amtrak load could have the Detroit train there first and out-of-position for a tow to Toronto. (Chatham is now single-track, which is why London may make more sense.)

Edit to add Chatham pic.

 

[jiml]

Further to the "connect VIA Windsor to Detroit" discussion, here are the obstacles and data points:
- VIA runs to Windsor on CN tracks to Walkerville - a couple of miles northeast of CP's tunnel to Detroit. Tracks past the station are partly abandoned or pulled up and replaced with parkland along the Detroit River. (The ROW can be seen on Google Maps.) Even if this route was rehabilitated, a large loop or turning track would be required to reach CP's tunnel slope - about 3 blocks from the river in a residential area.
- CN passenger trains did share this tunnel with CP and NY Central (CSO) before VIA, however they exited before the present Windsor station on connecting tracks to a joint yard complex in central Windsor, then on CP through the tunnel. These tracks are now mostly overgrown and used to store parts cars for the nearby Ford plant.
- The Amtrak Niagara Rainbow used the southerly Canso subdivision before joining CP for a stop at their station just prior to the tunnel on the Canadian side. As others have mentioned, this station is gone.

Since all the above need funding to resolve and there is little motivation to find it, that makes @jis' alternative the most viable solution if Amtrak and VIA partner on this route.

 

[John Bredin]

Does anyone here actually believe this will all come to fruition? I don't, given the circus that's currently going on with the proposed Gulf Coast service that everyone ballyhooed a few years ago when Amtrak ran a train all the way over to Jacksonville. Ohio? DOA in my estimation. Hope I'm wrong, but I'm not hopeful for a lot of routes that show on the map. Meanwhile, the Front Range is not connected to Amtrak's transcon route. Go figure.

All of them? I would be pleasantly surprised. But I do expect some of them to happen, and not just the ones cribbed from state plans in states that actually fund passenger rail (California, Illinois, etc.).

To me, the biggest obstacle is Congress possibly not funding this. While Biden and Buttigieg are vocally pro-Amtrak and Biden has submitted a robust infrastructure bill, Republican leaders in Congress are looking for things to whittle down in that bill. Amtrak should be considered "traditional" infrastructure, but it's certainly not unheard of for GOP pols to think believe that billions for highways is fine but millions for Amtrak is a waste, and opposing Amtrak funding because Biden wants it seems par for the vindictive course of the GOP in the last few years.

On the other hand, this plan seems custom-designed to bring new or improved service to red and purple states. Amtrak seems genuinely worried that it has frequent service in some regions (NEC, California) and little to none in other regions that are up-and-coming population-wise (Southeast, Southwest). But another way of seeing that is blue states having lots of service now and Amtrak planning to expand into red and purple areas. Being able to point to a plan and map that shows increased service in Georgia, or Alabama, or Arizona makes it easier for a Congressman from that state to vote for Amtrak funding.

As to Amtrak's willingness to implement this plan, it's Amtrak's baby, nobody made them do it. As I said above, Amtrak leadership seems worried about being increasingly irrelevant in regions that are increasingly relevant. Except where it cribs from existing state plans to have already-frequent service become even more frequent, this plan seems designed for breadth of service rather than depth, to have Amtrak be a practical option for more people in more places not presently served by Amtrak rather than high frequencies in a couple of new regions.

While I would l like more long-distance service as well as more corridor service, I think the plan's focus on corridors makes sense if the goal is to get more people who aren't riding Amtrak now to ride. If I'm in Atlanta and I've never ridden Amtrak before, it's a lot easier to get me to board a train for a few hours to Macon, Savannah, Montgomery, Birmingham, Chattanooga, Nashville, Greenville or Charlotte, especially when I have a choice of two or three round-trips, than to get me to take a hypothetical LD train to Chicago. Or if I'm in Denver it's easier to get me to take a train to Colorado Springs or Cheyenne than an LD train to Chicago or the Bay Area. If it's a trip I would otherwise drive, then being able to plink away on my phone, tablet, or laptop, or to drink alcohol, might tip me towards taking the train for roughly the same time if not faster. By contrast, taking an LD train for a day or more when I could fly sounds like a waste of time to a lot of people who don't get lots of time off and would rather spend precious time at their destination rather than traveling. Which isn't to say that some people wouldn't take the LD train, especially if it leaves one's community in the evening and arrives at one's destination in the morning, but corridors are a safer bet to get the most people's butts into Amtrak seats.

Also, nothing in this plan is contrary to more LD trains later on. At the least, many of the new services expressly presume that an existing LD train will be one of the frequencies, so it isn't anti-LD. Moreover, once you have service Denver-Pueblo, or Chicago-Louisville, or Atlanta-Nashville, the pressure or demand to fill the obvious gaps in the map will grow. And a person who travels by corridor, for whom Amtrak is a known quantity, is more likely to consider Amtrak for a longer trip than someone taking more of a leap into the unknown or unfamiliar. I note regarding gaps in the map that Amtrak is planning to fill a prominent one by connecting Fort Worth and Oklahoma City to the Southwest Chief at Newton, also bringing service to Wichita. Just because it's planning to do it with a corridor train rather than an LD train doesn't mean it wouldn't count.

As to uncooperative states, the no-money-for-the first-couple-years thing seems designed to get around that as much as humanly possible, as I have posted previously. Get service going, a useful service with at least two round-trips so a day trip can be made in either direction. Then hopefully the people who ride the train, the colleges and universities glad to have more car-free students not clogging the campus and the chambers of commerce and tourism boards in the towns with additional tourism because of the connection to other cities will pressure their legislators to keep the service going. It is, of course, possible that some particularly ideological state legislators will still oppose funding under such circumstances, but IMHO it's significantly harder to "kill" an existing service, especially one that directly serves your district, than to "abort" one that doesn't exist. (See Wisconsin, where Scott Walker was able to block Madison service from starting but kept reassuring business leaders that he had no intention to end or reduce the existing Chicago-Milwaukee service.)

As to the practicalities of working with freight railroads, going for a bunch of 2-4 train corridors rather than a couple of really frequent ones also makes a lot of sense. If a freight railroad is particularly intransigent or greedy, Amtrak isn't overly attached to getting any one corridor running. It can walk away and spend its money where the spending is easier, with more cooperative freight companies and/or on corridors with significant publicly-owned trackage. (The same is true for particularly uncooperative states, actually.) Also, while most freight railroads would rightfully balk at new hourly service without significant public capital funding, if your freight line can't handle 2-4 more round trips a day even with a modest capital investment, maybe Amtrak ain't the problem.

In short, I am cautiously but firmly optimistic about this plan, precisely because Amtrak is being practical and planning to put a lot of medium to large eggs in a lot of different baskets rather than putting one or two ostrich eggs in one or two laundry baskets that can be easily upset.

 

[MARC Rider]

I saw some discourse on Twitter about this and someone pointed out that Wisconsin was able to plan and build a road for FoxCon in 9 months, but this is the best Amtrak could do in 15 years with the force of a supposedly supportive president and congress behind them, even if it’s only till 2024.

"Discourse on Twitter..." That's really hearing from the experts! "Wisconsin was able to build a road for Foxcon in 9 months." Big deal. One road in one part of one state with the full support of the governor and the state legislature. I wonder how they steamrollered the NIMBYs, or maybe the road didn't pass by any NIMBYs, as it was going to serve a factory, anyway. Compare that with what Amtrak (or any passenger rail operator) has to face -- hostile state governments, hostile host railroads, hostile NIMBYs, a price tag much higher than one road (and a passenger rail projext has to be compared with not only building the road, but also buying all the trucks and cars that drive on it and hiring all the drivers, too) and a significant political opposition to the very concept of passenger rail. If Amtrak can get half of these proposed routes, that will be doing pretty well, and what they can't get isn't really their fault.

 

[Anthony V]

Interestingly, since Amtrak Day the CZ and before that the SFZ have never faced outright cancellation AFAIR. It has been down to thrice a week, specially west of Denver or SLC a few times, but never outright cancellation threat.

OTOH the SWC and before that the SWL went through several rounds of threats of outright cancellation, or more recently, destruction through segmentation.

So one could argue that it is the CZ which is the more stable transcon route.

Actually, the SFZ was on the chopping block as part of the Carter cuts, but the ongoing oil crisis at the time saved that route and a few others, including the Inter-American (today the Texas Eagle, albeit truncated), Southwest Limited (today the Southwest Chief), and the Pioneer (discontinued 1997).