34 replies to this topic

[Joel N. Weber II]

I think an ideal situation would be to figure out a way to connect up the Empire Corridor with the 3C Corridor by either extending a few Empire Corridor trains to Cleveland or extending a few 3C Corridor trains to Buffalo Depew or some combo thereof. This of course will require extra equipment over and above what will be necessary to run the basic Corridor services, so might take a while.

What calling times did you have in mind?

The Lake Shore Limited takes roughly 12 hours to get between New York City and Cleveland. It seems to me that the only way to have a train serve the 3Cs and NYP at reasonable calling times by extending an existing Empire Service run is going to extend a train that currently terminates at ALB to continue all the way to Cincinnati via Buffalo and Cleveland, and will require sleeping cars, a diner, etc. (241/257 departing NYP at 7:10/7:20 PM seem likely candidates; the departure slot before that at 5:20/5:45 might also work, except that the Ethan Allen Express uses it on Friday; and the eastbound train might arrive at NYP 7:35/8:35/8:45 AM as 230/250/232; this all assumes that things haven't changed since the two year old timetable I'm looking at.)

It's probably also possible to have a Cincinnati to Syracuse or maybe even Cincinnati to ALB day train.

Will CSX welcome an additional ALB-Cleveland round trip?

[Joel N. Weber II]

Another thing to think about: Cincinnati to St Louis via Indianapolis is about 350 highway miles. A train averaging 50 MPH would cover that in about 7 hours. (I have no idea what the condition of track along that route west of Indianapolis is, whether any railroad owning track along that route would want to tolerate an Amtrak round trip or two each day, etc.)

If Cleveland to Cincinnati takes 6 hours, and if a train departs Cleveland at 6 AM and Cincinnati at noon and then averages 50 MPH getting to St Louis, it should arrive at St Louis around 7:00 PM. The Texas Eagle heading south is scheduled to get to St Louis a little after that (7:21 PM in my two year old timetable). Northbound, the Texas Eagle is supposed to reach St Louis at 8:30, so if a train were timed to meet the Texas Eagle and head east, it might depart St Louis around 9:00 AM, reach Cincinnati around 4:00 PM, and Cleveland around 10:00 PM. (Yes, a 21 minute connection is probably too tight, but there are ways of making the Ohio connecting train run faster, or scheduling the Texas Eagle a little later, to deal with that.)

The City of New Orleans is scheduled to be at Effingham at 11:37 PM southbound, and 4:57 AM northbound. Those times are not the ideal times to make connections, but that would provide a workable connection to Ohio with the connecting train described in the previous paragraph without going through Chicago. And having a through coach and a through sleeper transferred between the City of New Orleans and the Ohio train could make the connection more convenient.

Connecting Ohio to the Southwest Chief in Kansas City (10:11 PM westbound, 7:45 AM eastbound) looks like it is probably doable, but would require an overnight train between Kansas City and Ohio (and might be best done by splitting/combining the Southwest Chief in Kansas City). St Louis to Kansas City is 5:40 currently; if we assume adding 7 hours to that for the 350 miles from St Louis to Cincinnati is about right, that's roughly 13 hours total, so the westbound schedule might be something like 3:00 PM Cleveland, 9:00 PM Cincinnati, and the eastbound schedule something like 9:00 AM Cincinnati, 3:00 PM Cleveland. It might be possible to continue this Ohio section of the Southwest Chief to Pittsburgh, which might have some value if the goal is to get federal funding for this train, to encourage Pennsylvania to vote for it.

[jis]

It's probably also possible to have a Cincinnati to Syracuse or maybe even Cincinnati to ALB day train.

Will CSX welcome an additional ALB-Cleveland round trip?

I was thinking more along the CIN - ALB daylight sort of train serving intermediate stations for local travel. Although an NYP - CIN LD train would be very nice too, but that would serve a different purpose IMHO.

I visualize the linkage to be more viable after NY State has managed to get the third track in place on the water level route, and managed to up the speed on the route to 110 - 125mph. At current speeds the viability is marginal at best and of course without additional track capacity CSX will throw a hissy-fit in all likelihood anyways.

[Joel N. Weber II]

I visualize the linkage to be more viable after NY State has managed to get the third track in place on the water level route, and managed to up the speed on the route to 110 - 125mph. At current speeds the viability is marginal at best and of course without additional track capacity CSX will throw a hissy-fit in all likelihood anyways.

At the rate the fourth platform track at ALB has been progressing, I predict that the 220 MPH railroad from Los Angeles to San Francisco will be operational before there is both a third track and 125 MPH running on the water level route, at which point maybe they'll decide that they'd be better off just building a new 220 MPH or faster double track railroad in upstate New York.

Also, Cincinnati to Cleveland to Erie (possibly to Buffalo?) to Niagara Falls to Toronto would probably have a reasonable running time as a day train, although again, I'm not sure about the track capacity issues.

[AAARGH!]

Yesterday (2/15/2010), I-71 was closed just north of Columbus. I had two friends trapped in Columbus and they had to take a room overnight.

I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.

Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.

Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?

Edited by AAARGH!, 16 February 2010 - 01:52 PM.

[jimhudson]

Yesterday (2/15/2010),

I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.

Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.

Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?

Sounds appropriate since the Buckeyes are limited! How about the Longhorn Express! (Sorry about the snow, Spring will be there in about three months! ) All kidding aside glad yall are getting a train, were still barely limping along here in the Lone Star State!

Edited by jimhudson, 16 February 2010 - 02:44 PM.

[AAARGH!]

Yesterday (2/15/2010),

I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.

Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.

Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?

Sounds appropriate since the Buckeyes are limited! How about the Longhorn Express! (Sorry about the snow, Spring will be there in about three months! ) All kidding aside glad yall are getting a train, were still barely limping along here in the Lone Star State!

Here is another - the Buckeye Blured. That's because when it runs from north to south, it runs from a Blue state to a red state!

[Green Maned Lion]

The City of New Orleans is scheduled to be at Effingham at 11:37 PM southbound, and 4:57 AM northbound.

But what if I don't want any effing ham?

[NEW RIVER GEORGE]

If the concept is an eventual high speed rail loop including Chicago, Indy, Cinci, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo and in-between points, it makes no sense to not have at least twice daily connections between the new Ohio train at both end points.

My opinion is that this is the falacy of "state trains" that involve no interoperability across state borders. All it takes is one anti-rail state like Indiana to sabotage the whole plan. What would have happened if the interstate highway system had been built that way, with big gaps across economically challenged and backward poltically states? Actually, the way the I-highway system jump-started started was to connect the toll roads that the big rich liberal states already were building. The feds provided the national standards and 90% of the money to the rest.

So do you put a slow puddle jumper on between Cleveland Columbus and Cincinnati at times nobody needs to use it, hope an interstate grid will fall into place on top of it someday, or is it just better to have dedicated rush hour commuter operations at both ends and forget about the middle??

Either way, I would say 2012 is optimistic for any trains to run in Ohio, but I am all for it anyway.

Go Buckeyes!

[rrdude]

Yesterday (2/15/2010), I-71 was closed just north of Columbus. I had two friends trapped in Columbus and they had to take a room overnight.

I'm guessing Amtrak could have run under the weather conditions. The I-71 closure was due to several multi-car accidents due to HEAVY snow.

Yet another reason for the Tri-C corridor.

Has a name been floated for this train? How about the Buckeye Limited?

Or the Woody Hayes Express?

[saxman]

Looks like some Ohio Republican are trying to put a stop to this train before it even gets started. I guess they consider the stimulus money coming has strings attached. Definitely a concern in a way, because Ohio will have to foot to operating bill at $17 million a year. Nevermind the fact that $17 million is less than 1% of Ohio budget for transportation. I wonder if having a projected ridership of 500,000 per year would offset that amount by less maintenance costs for the highways and less accidents to clean up for having that many less cars on the I-71.

Anyways, here's the article:

Despite Federal Investment, Ohio 3C Corridor Under Threat from State Republicans
by Yonah Freemark | February 19th, 2010
Filed Under Amtrak | High-Speed Rail | Ohio
» Republicans on state board could overrule use of funds for new rail service between Cincinnati and Cleveland.

Of the corridors receiving multi-million dollar grants from the federal government last month for improved rail service, Ohio’s 3C line arguably provides the most bang for the buck. By 2012, at a cost of $400 million, the state will be able to reactivate passenger operations between Cleveland, Columbus, and Cincinnati, via Dayton — a service that’s been out of commission for decades. It will provide the first trains to the state capital since 1977.

Rest of the article

[rile42]

After the $400 million the Feds have given the state of Ohio to start the 3-C corridor, it is not a for sure thing. All kinds of misinformation and rumors have swirled around regarding the service. Now it might come down to a committee where a "super majority" is needed to get the bill to go forward out of the legislature. A story in the local paper explains it and can be found at http://www.newarkadv...-train-proposal. If you do go to the page look at the comments. Ridiculous.

[ALC_Rail_Writer]

Voters won't stand for it... Ohio is cash-desperate, if the Feds are handing them a $400 million check then the GOP is asking for trouble if they're letting $17 million get in the way.

[Joel N. Weber II]

What would it take for a Cleveland to Detroit via Toledo train to become operational?

[AlanB]

What would it take for a Cleveland to Detroit via Toledo train to become operational?

Money and an agreement with the host RR's.