Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

Amtrak reroutes


  • Please log in to reply
54 replies to this topic

#41 CAQuail

CAQuail

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Westchester County, New York

Posted 19 April 2018 - 01:13 PM

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.



#42 SarahZ

SarahZ

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,451 posts
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Michigan
  • Interests:Writing, reading, baking, trivia, adventures, historic preservation

Posted 19 April 2018 - 05:46 PM

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?

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).
  • jis likes this
Amtrak Miles: 48,312
 
Amtrak Routes: Blue Water, California Zephyr, Capitol Limited, Carl Sandburg, City of New Orleans, Coast Starlight, Crescent, Empire Builder, Hiawatha, Illinois Zephyr, Lincoln Service, Southwest Chief, Texas Eagle, Wolverine
 
Metropolitan Rail: Chicago Metra, Chicago L, Dallas TRE, Detroit People Mover, New Orleans RTA, San Francisco MUNI, Seattle Monorail, South Shore Line (NICTD), Toronto Subway & RT, Washington DC Metro

#43 IndyLions

IndyLions

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 07:23 PM

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.

#44 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 20 April 2018 - 10:21 PM

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.
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.

Edited by brianpmcdonnell17, 20 April 2018 - 10:22 PM.

Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#45 IndyLions

IndyLions

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 20 April 2018 - 11:34 PM

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

#46 LookingGlassTie

LookingGlassTie

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 353 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Portsmouth, VA

Posted 21 April 2018 - 08:01 PM

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.................


"And you know that notion just crossed my mind............"


#47 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,069 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, Illinois

Posted 21 April 2018 - 11:24 PM

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.

Edited by brianpmcdonnell17, 21 April 2018 - 11:25 PM.

Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SEA-LAX, CZ CHI-RIC, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB SEA-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS/NYP-CHI, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-CLT, SM ORL-NYP, SS MIA-NYP

#48 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,720 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 22 April 2018 - 07:32 AM

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.
  • cpotisch likes this

#49 dogbert617

dogbert617

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 261 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago, IL

Posted 17 August 2018 - 11:34 PM

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.


Edited by dogbert617, 17 August 2018 - 11:35 PM.

  • Pere Flyer likes this

#50 IndyLions

IndyLions

    Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 97 posts

Posted 26 August 2018 - 07:17 PM

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.
  • Philly Amtrak Fan and Pere Flyer like this

#51 neroden

neroden

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,732 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling
  • Location:Ithaca, NY
  • Interests:Please feel free to moderate my posts

Posted 15 September 2018 - 09:47 AM

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.
--Nathanael--

Please feel free to moderate my posts.

#52 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 15 September 2018 - 11:49 AM

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...


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#53 ehbowen

ehbowen

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,467 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, Texas

Posted 15 September 2018 - 02:33 PM

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....h?v=0K4sXozt0zk

 


broadside-1.jpg 16 inch Armor Piercing...When you care enough to send the very, VERY best!
Visit Streamliner Schedules - Historic timetables from the Streamliner era.


#54 dgvrengineer

dgvrengineer

    Train Attendant

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • 3 posts

Posted 15 September 2018 - 08:33 PM

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.



#55 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,677 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 15 September 2018 - 10:27 PM

 

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.

 

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?


  • Pere Flyer likes this
metroblue?

okay on the blue!




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users