PHL-CHI Route Options

[Anderson]

Well, and I think we've just hit on what I want to focus on with this board such as I can: Everyone is looking either at little pieces of the picture (e.g. VA/NC, Ohio, New York) or at a magnificent vista a hundred miles in the distance (e.g. NARP's Vision Plan). Nobody is really trying to assemble pieces like this, albeit on a scale that can be digested.

So, while I work up a timetable for this...I think I know the project we need to work on: While I know it is "playing train" to some extent, what if we actually took on a comprehensive rebuild of the Eastern network in the context of $5-10bn being available and restricting ourselves to projects with serious feasibility studies out there and/or limited variations on them (and focusing on the designated HSR corridors)? Knock-on effects of specific projects (NYHSR on the LSL, MWHSR on...a whole sorting yard full of LD trains, etc.) alongside figuring out how best to take advantage of those "first-tier" knock-on effects with "second-tier" effects (e.g. if train X is moved in the timetable, how does that redo connection options and do other trains need to be moved to take advantage of that?).

I know this implies necessarily a large amount of overall money (I would presume $2-5bn would need to go "out west" for this to work politically...and I do not oppose setting that up), but if I may get on a soapbox...the logjam we run into is that in order to do this on multiple routes, even in the Midwest, would require a massive amount of money...basically presume you're looking at anywhere from $2-5bn for every major route chunk (e.g. NYP-BUF, CLE-CHI, CHI-STL, PHL-PGH, WAS-CLT, etc.) you want to seriously upgrade on this scale. On the other hand, however, I also strongly believe that such a wave of improvements would likely knock operating losses down by quite a bit...which should make funding a significant expansion of services feasible.

(Also, I realized that the table above did not tweak the Capitol Limited's timings westbound. That will be addressed in the next round of work)

 

[Anderson]

    |  41  |  43  |  47  |  49  |  29  |  39  ||  30  |  48  |  46  |  42  |  40  |  38  |
NYP | 2150 | 1322 | 2055 | 1805 | ---- | 0810 || ---- | 1341 | 0911 | 1803 | 0908 | 2100 |
PHL | 2312 | 1445 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1512 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1656 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1706 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2300 | 2010 | ---- | 1015 || ---- | 1136 | 0706 | ---- | ---- | 1855 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2320 | 2030 | ---- | 1035 || ---- | 1116 | 0646 | ---- | ---- | 1835 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0345 | 0055 | ---- | 1500 || ---- | 0651 | 0221 | ---- | ---- | 1410 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0350 | 0100 | ---- | 1510 || ---- | 0646 | 0216 | ---- | ---- | 1400 |
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1805 | ---- || 1020 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 2225 | ---- | ---- | 0146 | ---- || 0235 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2235 | ---- | ---- | 0156 | ---- || 0225 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 0135 | 0717 | 0427 | 0450 | 1830 || 2310 | 0350 | 2259 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 |
CLE | 1040 | 0145 | 0727 | 0437 | 0500 | 1840 || 2300 | 0340 | 2249 | 0450 | 2020 | 1040 |
TOL | 1150 | 0255 | 0837 | 0547 | 0610 | 1950 || 2150 | 0230 | 2139 | 0340 | 1835 | 0930 |
TOL | 1200 | 0305 | 0847 | 0557 | 0620 | 2000 || 2140 | 0220 | 2129 | 0330 | 1825 | 0920 |
DET | 1410 | 0515 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2210 || ---- | ---- | ---- | 0120 | 1650 | 0710 |
CHI | 1810 | 0915 | 1227 | 0937 | 0900 | ---- || 1900 | 2340 | 1849 | 2120 | 1250 | ---- | EST
CHI | 1710 | 0815 | 1127 | 0837 | 0800 | ---- || 1800 | 2240 | 1749 | 2020 | 1150 | ---- | CST

ALL TIMES EASTERN
For Central Time, adjust Chicago by one hour (second line at bottom)

Thoughts:
-I forced schedules around to try and avoid any super-early arrivals at the end of various routes. Blocking out 0700-0900 at NYP seriously costs some interesting possibilities, but I'm presuming MNRR would throw a temper tantrum at the possibility and NYP is slammed enough at the time as-is...while trying to get an LSL into New York before 0700 gets messy out west.
-I've got connections to the Western trains on all but one train each way. 40/41 is the "loser" here...there aren't enough savings CHI-PHL to make that quite work out, and aside from that I'm sort of reticent to have an LD train leave CHI before about 1630 or so since you'd bleed out a lot of medium-distance business traffic in the process. With that being said, I also like the feasible times BUF-NYP on such a train...it's a really tough, obnoxious call to make.
-I wound up with two post-rush hour departures from NYP much to my surprise.
--I may consider shoving 46/47 around to cater to the overnight NYP-BUF market. Doing so would bust those connections, but I also think that's an important market to consider in this.
--48/49 has another odd problem: If I push the departure early (pre-rush hour) the timing into CHI actually becomes troublesome. I've actually got trouble believing that an arrival around 0630 wouldn't almost be too early, unless you were willing to allow space to be occupied until 0700 or 0715. So that's another thing to consider on the LSL front. One thing I might just do is park the bloody train in Buffalo or Cleveland or somewhere like that for an hour to chew up some clock time...or heck, I might even consider re-routing via Detroit. What a problem to have... It might also be worth flipping a Broadway to skip Detroit at that point, especially if it can enhance connections.
-I wish I could force the Capitol Limited's EB departure back another 45 minutes or so. Again, this is running into the problem that the railroads always had back in the 50s: The NYC-CHI times were great, but the two-hour clock swing caused problems CHI-NYC (so you'd leave at 1700 and arrive at 0900...but you'd have to leave at 1530 and arrive at 0930 or something similar).

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

First of all, great job Anderson! Do you have a link to the 90A, 90B, 110, and 125 options?

I'm just trying to see if we can "share the wealth" though.

I'm thinking if we have 46/48 and 47/49 via the Empire route, we can run 46 and 47 to BOS direct and remove the split/merge from the current LSL (48/49). So 46/47 would be BOS to CHI along the Empire route and 48/49 would be NYP to CHI along the Empire route. I don't think NYP needs another train to CHI since they would have the current LSL and two "Broadway Limited's" (besides, 40 and 46 leave so close to each other and 41 and 47 arrive so close to each other). This would solve the "temporary" headache at Albany.

I also think having through cars to Columbus and CIN along the 3-C route would be useful. Right now, 40/41 look to be the best schedule. All Aboard Ohio had approximately 5 hr 45 min between the two so the train could run roughly 11:15am-5pm south and 2:00-7:45pm north. If you use 46/47 (assuming you keep via NYP), that would be 8:00am-1:45pm south and 4:15-10:00pm north. I don't think it would be possible to turn the train at CIN and return it to CLE the same day. The best approach would be to store the northbound train overnight in CLE and use it the next day southbound.

It probably makes more sense to use the old Ohio State Limited and do CIN-CLE-BUF-ALB-NYP but I would imagine removing the split at ALB for separate NYP and BOS branches would also be something worthwhile if we have two CHI-Empire trains and you couldn't do that if you use 46/47 for your through cars.

So I would do:

40/41 (Liberty Limited): Add 3-C branch (440/441?) at CLE (have to increase stop time in CLE).

42/43 (Pennsylvanian): No change

46/47 (Boston Limited): BOS to CHI via Empire Route

48/49 (Lake Shore Limited): NYP to CHI via Empire Route (no BOS).

If you move the times of the 3-C branch you might even allow passengers from the rest of Ohio to catch the 38/39 to/from DET thus adding Michigan to southern Ohio access. The problem is to do so you increase the wait time in CLE for passengers going to the east. You could push the 39 back an hour (and it avoids leaving NYP during rush hour) to make it a little better but then you get into DET after 11pm and Detroit might be near the bottom if not the bottom of the list of cities I want to be at that late at night. The 38 and 41 arrive in CLE around the same time so either could connect with the southbound 3-C branch depending on how much leeway Amtrak will allow for a connection in CLE from the 38/39 to the 3-C.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Nice work Cliff, and Philly Amtrak Fan,you seem to be getting what we have been saying, that expanding Amtrak, not cutting it , is the way to roll! Welcome to the club!

 

[Seaboard92]

Since the discussion has started I've been wondering what would happen if BOS-ALB was either it's own corridor or it's own stand alone train. How much ridership is on that segment? I'm with Philly the Ohio State Limited would be the best routing for the three C and the NE. With the time savings from the plans what time would it have the train leaving. Anderson and Philly can you send me you're documents you use for the HSR routes and AAO. So I can peruse it.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Since the discussion has started I've been wondering what would happen if BOS-ALB was either it's own corridor or it's own stand alone train. How much ridership is on that segment? I'm with Philly the Ohio State Limited would be the best routing for the three C and the NE. With the time savings from the plans what time would it have the train leaving. Anderson and Philly can you send me you're documents you use for the HSR routes and AAO. So I can peruse it.

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

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

 

[jis]

Cliff, there was a one hour error in the timetable of 29, 48 and 46 that I fixed.

I also took the liberty to throw in a 3C proposal or two, one based closely on the Ohio document and the other a pure day train.

Just for illustrative purposes I have posited a day train between New York and Chicago, train 36/37, which becomes possible due to the shorter end to end times. Also these New York Buffalo schedules will have to be adjusted with those of Empire Service trains on the faster schedule too. Similarly the Chicago Detroit portion will have to be rationalized with the updated Wolverine schedules.

There are all sorts of additional possibilities that materialize too

| 41 | 43 | 47 | 49 | 29 | 39 | 37 || 30 | 48 | 46 | 42 | 40 | 38 | 36 |
NYP | 2150 | 1322 | 2045 | 1805 | ---- | 0810 | 0635 || ---- | 1441 | 1020 | 1803 | 0908 | 2100 | 2345 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PHL | 2312 | 1445 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1638 | 0748 | ---- | ---- |
PHL | 2342 | 1512 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1608 | 0718 | ---- | ---- |
HAR | 0126 | 1656 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1408 | 0528 | ---- | ---- |
HAR | 0146 | 1706 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 1338 | 0508 | ---- | ---- |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2250 | 2010 | ---- | 1015 | 0840 || ---- | 1236 | 0815 | ---- | ---- | 1855 | 2130 |
ALB | ---- | ---- | 2310 | 2030 | ---- | 1035 | 0900 || ---- | 1216 | 0805 | ---- | ---- | 1835 | 2110 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0335 | 0055 | ---- | 1500 | 1345 || ---- | 0751 | 0330 | ---- | ---- | 1410 | 1650 |
BUF | ---- | ---- | 0340 | 0100 | ---- | 1510 | 1355 || ---- | 0746 | 0325 | ---- | ---- | 1400 | 1645 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WAS | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1705 | ---- | ---- || 1120 | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0705 | 2225 | ---- | ---- | 0046 | ---- | ---- || 0335 | ---- | ---- | 0815 | 2345 | ---- | ---- |
PGH | 0730 | 2235 | ---- | ---- | 0056 | ---- | ---- || 0325 | ---- | ---- | 0800 | 2330 | ---- | ---- |
CLE | 1030 | 0135 | 0707 | 0427 | 0350 | 1830 | 1715 || 0010 | 0450 | 0005 | 0500 | 2030 | 1050 | 1335 |
CLE | 1040 | 0145 | 0727 | 0437 | 0400 | 1840 | 1735 || 0000 | 0440 | 2349 | 0450 | 2020 | 1040 | 1315 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CLE | ---- | ---- | 0740 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1745 || ---- | ---- | 2330 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1310 |
COL | ---- | ---- | 1010 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2015 || ---- | ---- | 2200 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1100 |
COL | ---- | ---- | 1015 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2020 || ---- | ---- | 2155 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 1055 |
CIN | ---- | ---- | 1325 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2330 || ---- | ---- | 1845 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 0745 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOL | 1150 | 0255 | 0837 | 0547 | 0510 | 1950 | 1845 || 2250 | 0330 | 2239 | 0340 | 1835 | 0930 | 1215 |
TOL | 1200 | 0305 | 0847 | 0557 | 0520 | 2000 | 1855 || 2240 | 0320 | 2229 | 0330 | 1825 | 0920 | 1200 |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DET | 1410 | 0515 | ---- | ---- | ---- | 2210 | ---- || ---- | ---- | ---- | 0120 | 1650 | 0710 | ---- |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHI | 1810 | 0915 | 1227 | 0937 | 0900 | ---- | 2235 || 1900 | 2340 | 1849 | 2120 | 1250 | ---- | 0820 | EST
CHI | 1710 | 0815 | 1127 | 0837 | 0800 | ---- | 2135 || 1800 | 2240 | 1749 | 2020 | 1150 | ---- | 0720 | CST


Have fun!

 

[Anderson]

Since the discussion has started I've been wondering what would happen if BOS-ALB was either it's own corridor or it's own stand alone train. How much ridership is on that segment? I'm with Philly the Ohio State Limited would be the best routing for the three C and the NE. With the time savings from the plans what time would it have the train leaving. Anderson and Philly can you send me you're documents you use for the HSR routes and AAO. So I can peruse it.

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

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

https://www.dot.ny.gov/empire-corridor

The Empire Corridor stuff. There are five timetables indicated (Base, 90A, 90B, 110, and 125). Base costs $0 (obviously), 90A costs $1.6bn, 90B and 110 cost about $5-6bn, an 125 costs $14bn.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Any tracks from IND to Columbus directly? The old National Limited route?

Sorry to say, I think no. Abandoned and then built on. As I recall, both the Midwest Regional Initiative and the Ohio Hob looked at this obviously desirable route, but found just too many problems to be worth it.

Indiana has priorities, too, of course. For South of the Lake, if Michigan, Illinois, and the Feds will put up most of the money, Indiana will likely come up with part of the matching funds for the $2 Billion or so needed.

Indy-CHI is up there, where $250 million could get half an hour out of the Indiana section of the schedule of the Hoosier State and Cardinal. An excellent study commissioned by the Indiana Dept of Highways examined plans for the faster route with two added frequencies. But it came up with a needed subsidy of about $20 million, an amount deemed too high. Note that when calculating the Return on Investment of that $250 million in upgrades, the excellent study included a value of zero ( 0 ) for any benefits to the Cardinal. ("That's not our Department," said Indiana Dept of Highways.) And the study also gave zero ( 0 ) value to potential benefits going forward on future routes Cincinnati-Indy and Louisville-Indy. (I used to have a link to the study, but it seems to have gone dead.)

Indiana is also looking fondly at the proposed new route Columbus-Ft Wayne-CHI.

I do believe that we can say, without fear of contradiction, that Indiana DOT supports any rail improvement plan that doesn't require more money from the state legislature.

 

[neroden]

Just for illustrative purposes I have posited a day train between New York and Chicago, train 36/37, which becomes possible due to the shorter end to end times.

(Eyes bug out in a good way)

Which improvements are necessary to achieve this timetable? This would cause explosive growth in ridership, particularly upstate NY - Chicago.

Something worth noting with the above (and which I was reminded of in the CHI-DEN thread): Midwest HSR has a major set of improvements CHI-CLE proposed which would knock something like three hours off of that section. Some of that is South of the Lake, some of it is improvements further along.

I'd also point out that a system where New York actually finishes their HSR program on options 90A, 90B, or 110 alongside a Cleveland-Chicago HSR route is not fantasyland IMHO (I'm far less optimistic about option 125, though if you combine that with a three-hour knock off on the other end the total savings would run somewhere in the range of 5:00-5:30 assuming we could get on or more LD trains on the new route...which would actually smoke the best times the NYC was ever able to manage).

Are we assuming both of these sets of projects (but keeping BUF-CLE the same)?

--48/49 has another odd problem: If I push the departure early (pre-rush hour) the timing into CHI actually becomes troublesome. I've actually got trouble believing that an arrival around 0630 wouldn't almost be too early

Nah, it'll be fine. There's a lot of "early to rise" market heading for CHI (not so much towards NYC). I wouldn't get in before 6 AM, though.
So a big chunk of the time savings is the Cleveland-Chicago HSR line.

In proposals so far, the main part of the 125 mph HSR route is supposed to run along the former Pennsy Fort Wayne route in Indiana, which is currently a barely-functional shortline. I don't think it would be too hard to buy the line for passenger service.

I doubt that it's worth retaining a line for local freight the whole way, though local freight traffic could access Hanna, Plymouth, and Warsaw via intersecting north-south lines.

The line is quite straight. A lot of additional grade separations would be required though, probably over or under most of the small towns.

Difficult bits are:

-- Buffington Harbor through Gary: more freight traffic, lots of bridges over and under, hemmed in by buildings;

-- Gary-Valparaiso, for the same reason

-- Warsaw where the line bends to avoid lakes and runs through the middle of town,

-- Fort Wayne itself, where there's much more active freight traffic and a station is needed, and the line is hemmed in by buildings;

-- Defiance OH, which would likely require a bypass

-- Liberty Center to Toledo, which has been dismantled and turned into a trail, though the train could go north to Delta instead.

-- Toledo, for similar reasons to Ft. Wayne

The Cleveland-Toledo section was basically scheduled to be upgraded on the existing route, which is in some ways harder because it has to run adjacent to active mainline freight tracks.

I'd be tempted to build a new Maumee River Bridge to the north of the existing one to enter the existing Toledo station tracks straight rather than on a curve.

I'm curious as to how much of the time savings can be gained with the Chicago-Ft. Wayne-Toledo line by itself. This might be a way to actually get support from Indiana, and it could be a big time savings.

 

[Anderson]

Chicago-Fort Wayne under the Northern Indiana proposal would run 1:47; under the Broadway schedule in 1990 it took 3:17 (Broadway) or 3:20 (Capitol) westbound and 2:58 (both) eastbound.

One point that came up at the NARP meeting last month is that in some cases, we might actually have some luck negotiating to build a freight bypass and then taking over downtown lines which really don't do as much for the freight operations down there as they used to. This has also come up in VA as well (Ashland, Fredericksburg) and it's worth looking at in a few of these places.

 

[neroden]

I would like to compare *Chicago-Toledo* times between the current times and the HSR proposal via Fort Wayne. And see the estimated capital cost of that proposal.

 

[Seaboard92]

I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok

 

[Anderson]

I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok

Serious question: Let's presume that, given a limited number of frequencies available (even if we start hurling trains onto the timecard like it's the 1950s all over again, there are only so many slots to be had overall), you've got to choose between sending a train to CHI via Detroit or via SOB (and that there are no practical plans for a Water Level train to be supported by IN or OH). Which should have priority? I have to ask this because we've got three routes to look at (via Detroit, via South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and it probably isn't practical at present to cover all three.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok

Serious question: Let's presume that, given a limited number of frequencies available (even if we start hurling trains onto the timecard like it's the 1950s all over again, there are only so many slots to be had overall), you've got to choose between sending a train to CHI via Detroit or via SOB (and that there are no practical plans for a Water Level train to be supported by IN or OH). Which should have priority? I have to ask this because we've got three routes to look at (via Detroit, via South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and it probably isn't practical at present to cover all three.

How about:

LSL via Michigan

CL via South Bend

Liberty Limited (CHI-PGH-PHL-NYP) via Ft. Wayne/Columbus

Too many routes? Not enough?

 

[Eric S]

I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.

Between CHI and TOL, if we can pick two routes (ignoring upgrade costs), I'd choose the route via Dearborn/Detroit and via Fort Wayne, rather than via South Bend. There is certainly a substantially larger population along the line through MI than along either of the other two. As for why Fort Wayne over South Bend, it's not so much an issue of population (South Bend metro 319,000 and Elkhart metro 202,000 are larger than Fort Wayne metro 427,000), but rather than South Bend still has service to CHI via the South Shore Line and that there is probably a better chance of avoiding delays and *maybe* cheaper to upgrade (although if that's not the case, that could swing things back in favor of South Bend) by going through Fort Wayne.

 

[jis]

My non-scientific impression is that very few people use the Amtrak Service to get from Chicago to South Bend and vice versa. Most of the South Bend and Elkhart traffic is from/to the east, which kind of undermines the premise of the argument that South bend should lose service because it has CSSSB service to Chicago.

There is nothing cheap about the work needed to reinstate service to Fort Wayne even at 60mph at present. If an HSR happens via Fort Wayne anyway, then it would make sense to piggyback on it. But not otherwise.

 

[neroden]

I see that as a working solution. The LD benefits and NS benefits by getting the line from Elkhart without obstructions. Even though I would be tempted to leave 48/49 on there to keep service up on that like to a minimum standard. But that could be because I don't want to see the Water Level Route without trains. But I would rather amtrak do what's best for business. So if it's abandon that then it's ok

Serious question: Let's presume that, given a limited number of frequencies available (even if we start hurling trains onto the timecard like it's the 1950s all over again, there are only so many slots to be had overall), you've got to choose between sending a train to CHI via Detroit or via SOB (and that there are no practical plans for a Water Level train to be supported by IN or OH). Which should have priority? I have to ask this because we've got three routes to look at (via Detroit, via South Bend, and via Fort Wayne) and it probably isn't practical at present to cover all three.

At conventional speeds, Detroit is best (most population en-route).

If a high-speed line is built, the high-speed line is best -- and the main proposed high-speed route is via Fort Wayne, because it seems like the easiest place to get a long, straight, flat line. But there should still be a connection from Toledo to Dearborn and the rest of Michigan.

South Bend already has service to Chicago via the South Shore Line, with the fastest train taking 3 hours, and this is not going anywhere. Yes, many many people do come from the east to South Bend. I think many of them are driving to points north in Michigan, points south in Indiana, or the eastern suburbs of Chicago. A Toledo-Dearborn-Lansing-Grand Rapids train would tell us what percentage are driving north. A Fort Wayne route HSR line would probably intercept people from the south at Valparaiso.

If HSR cuts the Toledo-Chicago times by 1.5 hours or more, I think the longer times to go east coast-South Bend are an acceptable tradeoff. Then it's just Elkhart which loses out on service, and not very many people are riding Elkhart - east compared to South Bend. Ideally the South Shore Line could be extended to Elkhart.

I think it's worth considering whether a Fort Wayne HSR line can be made faster than 125 mph. I think it can, at least from Valparaiso to Warsaw, and possibly most of the way. The extra cost might not be significant compared to 125 mph -- if you're basically building fresh, the added speed isn't the expensive part -- and the more minutes it knocks off, the easier it is to justify 'backtracking' service to South Bend.

I think it is worth spending more time working out what might be done for Toledo-Chicago HSR, and maximizing and detailing the full *network* benefits of it. It's not going to be the first thing built... South of the Lake needs to be built first, for one thing... but it's good to have a Next Big Project after that, and I think this is the correct one for the midwest from a network point of view, since it points to the NEC. (Further improving Chicago - St. Louis is not the correct one from a network point of view, and Toledo-Detroit is a small project, not a Big Project.)

 

[jis]

The only thing about speed greater than 125mph is, as soon as you get that, you will need LD rolling stock that is Tier III compliant to actually run at such speeds. Which essentially means completely new rolling stock for LD trains that would want to run on those lines at the higher speed. And also most likely we are talking electrified railroad at that point too. Just more additional cost that needs to be budgeted for to make the most of it.

Basically we'd be talking of significant modification in fleet structure and management, which I am by the way all for, but one has to plan for it and fund i adequately.

 

[Eric S]

Certainly the South Shore does not help South Bend/Elkhart passengers heading east. And if we're just looking at whether to keep the two existing trains (and perhaps one more train) running via South Bend, or to reroute via Fort Wayne - well, South Bend it is, as that is almost certainly cheaper than upgrading the line through Fort Wayne to be time-competitive. But, if we're looking at some sort of CHI-CLE corridor service (thinking HrSR here, not necessarily HSR), then I'm not sure it's clear which route is cheaper to upgrade, as the South Bend route would almost certainly require significant capacity improvements.

 

[jis]

For HSR, if one looks at existing ROWs, assuming that the current owners are willing to have their ROW used for HSR, I think the Fort Wayne routing holds more promise. It is usually easier to improve a lesser used route than to try to arm wrestle ones way onto a saturated route.

 

[Seaboard92]

I can support HSR on any route. As run times are important for the end point traffic and attracting ridership. Along with same day turns. Let's say it leaves the NYC route. I would rather the trains run faster. How much freight is on the PRR route

 

[neroden]

There's basically no freight on the former PRR route via Ft. Wayne. It's a shortline maintained to very low standards.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I think generally it's better to have fewer routes with multiple frequencies than to have more routes with only one train each, within a general travel corridor.

You wouldn't be saying that if you don't have a route.

 

[Seaboard92]

Isn't Ns throwing major money into that line as they have trackage rights to run trains around the bottleneck that is Elkhart