Seaboard92
Engineer
I keep reading about their ideas so I just took some time to read their reports and I have to say it is fascinating. So without further ado I'm going to break it down, and see what you guys think of it.
Overall I find their plans very interesting. I think their routings and timings might need some tweaking but it isn't that bad. And I think they might be onto something. And as far as future advocacy for service extensions the economic impact being higher then all costs might be something to tout.
I see this as being a no brainer, the current ridership on the tri weekly train is at 113,103. So going up 96 percent brings it up to around 239,676 riders a year. And for an additional two million that I see being quickly offset. I'm wondering what would happen if the Cardinal would then move to a timetable more convenient for Cincinnati what would happen to ridership.
- [SIZE=10pt]Daily Cardinal: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The annual operating subsidy for this Chicago-Cincinnati-New York City train could increase by $2 million per year but cut the loss per passenger by 31 percent and boost ridership 96 percent (per Amtrak 2010 Performance Improvement Plan). Amtrak may soon have the equipment necessary for this expansion. No additional infrastructure capacity may be needed beyond what is being added now in Virginia and Indiana. [/SIZE]
- [SIZE=10pt]Annual Cost 2M Annual economic impact 240M[/SIZE]
I believe their number is for the thru cars that we're studied back in 2010. I see the route as having some promise, but I'm still thinking the route via Buffalo might have more ridership. But I'm open to any ideas on that. I like the idea of routing via Youngstown, but I hate that it involves CSX. So I don't see much happening with that to be honest.
- [SIZE=10pt]Pennsylvanian restoration to Chicago via Detroit: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Based on running cars through Pittsburgh to Chicago on the Capitol Limited, the annual operating subsidy could be $700,000 per year, but cut the loss per passenger 15 percent and boost ridership 9 percent (per Amtrak 2010 Performance Improvement Plan). Amtrak in 2014 considered extending the Pennsylvanian west of Pittsburgh to Chicago via Detroit as an independent train with little or no added subsidy. Amtrak may soon have the equipment necessary for this expansion. However, traffic capacity enhancements between Dearborn and Pittsburgh may be required for this expansion as would a new track connection at Ravenna to route this service via Youngstown which has 12 times more population than the existing Cleveland-Pittsburgh Amtrak route through Alliance. [/SIZE]
- Start Up Cost 40-119M. Annual Cost 700,000. Economic Impact 460M
I see several benefits to this. First off it's a LD train over the miles required for state funding so it could be added easier, but I don't see that happening. Two it would give the Three Cs service to the east coast, and serve as a morning train westbound on the corridor and an evening eastbound train. Saving rolling stock for another Ohio corridor train or allowing them to have their base in Cincinnati. Which would be appealing for turning a LD train there. If we go off their timetable which is similar to the one I came up with for the Ohio State Limited (http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66222-ohio-state-limited-nyp-buf-cle-cin/) then it might be possible to run this train with only two sets of equipment. Which could be very doable. And they say it would have the largest ridership of new service, so this in my opinion might be our best train to start out with.
- [SIZE=10pt]Cincinnati section of Lake Shore Limited: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]A 1990 Amtrak study of Service To Areas Not Presently Served proposed operating Cincinnati-Cleveland-New York City cars on the Chicago- Cleveland-New York City/Boston Lake Shore Limited. It would restore Amtrak service to Columbus (the nation's largest metro area without any passenger rail service) and Dayton for the first time since 1979. Amtrak projected this would be the nation's highest-ridership new service, attracting 133,000 first-year riders and incurring an operating subsidy of $3.9 million in 1990. Up to a half-dozen en route stations in Ohio could be added. Amtrak may soon have the equipment necessary for this expansion. Grade crossing circuits will need to be lengthened to speed up trains and passenger-funded PTC may be needed Columbus-Galion. Modest capacity enhancements could be added to address traffic choke points with future improvements made to speed up an initially slow schedule. [/SIZE]
- [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 109-189M. Annual cost 6-8M. Economic Impact 756M[/SIZE]
I like that it runs exactly 12 hours after their other extension train giving the route twice daily service. But I think there should be a upstate NY train to Michigan. So I propose rerouting this train back from NY via Buffalo. It still gets the daylight service that route. I honestly see this as a Chicago section of the Ohio State Limited or as we call it the New York Nightmare. And in it's place I would give the PRR route a direct train to Chicago via Fort Wayne.
- [SIZE=10pt]Three Rivers restoration via Detroit: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]Operating on a 12-hour counter-schedule and on the same route as the Pennsylvanian extension (Chicago-Detroit-Pittsburgh-New York City), the Three Rivers would provide daylight service across Ohio and an overnight train to the East Coast. The prior Three Rivers carried 135,000 passengers at an operating loss of $28 million per year due to an unpopulated route west of Akron and high costs from food service and sleeping cars. Service should be restored only if a new operating plan is more cost effective. About 3-4 trainsets of 5-7 cars each may be needed. While stations and PTC are in place, significant additional mainline capacity is likely required to accommodate this train. Also crossing circuits should be lengthened so passenger trains can operate at up to 90 mph on some sections. [/SIZE]
- [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 42-128M. Annual Cost 28-39M. Economic Impact 512M[/SIZE]
I love this idea except for the detour to Columbus. I see why they want to route via Columbus because it would add some major ridership. But the investment it would take in time to and from Columbus from the EX PRR Mainline would be an issue. Their routing has it running over two Regional Railroads PGH-COL which would need major investment. I see this as being a better route going via the EX PRR Mainline further north. And skipping Columbus, even though I think there would be ridership from there to Chicago. It would also give Philly, HAR, and PGH a faster time west to Chicago.
- [SIZE=10pt]Broadway/National Limited restoration: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]The National Limited (Kansas City-Columbus-New York City until 1979) and Broadway Limited (Chicago-Fort Wayne-New York City until 1990) were taken from their Ohio cities as a result of the private-sector downgrading their routes. This restoration proposal seeks to combine the best of the remaining segments by operating Chicago- Fort Wayne-Lima-Columbus-Pittsburgh-East Coast. An annual operating subsidy in the $10 million to $15 million range for the portion west of Pittsburgh is possible with through cars on an existing train(s) to the East Coast. Needed are numerous en route station facilities, PTC, new passing sidings and lengthened crossing circuits on almost all sections west of Pittsburgh, major trackwork between Gary, IN and the Illinois state line, new rails west of Dunkirk, OH and about 3- 4 trainsets of 5-7 cars each. [/SIZE]
- [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 93-289M. Annual Cost 10-15M. Economic Impact 1.156 Billion [/SIZE]
I could majorly see this as a great route. Even though I disagree with some of their routings. I think the train would be better off leaving from Chicago operating via INDY to CIN for this routing. But I still would prefer it to route via Nashville. The other disagreements I have with on their route is I would leave it on the most straight line from Toledo to Cincinnati instead of detouring to Columbus. But if the times would equal out then I would say route it via Columbus. I think it has potential to be a strong route, but it needs some tweaking.
- [SIZE=10pt]Midwest-Florida passenger rail: [/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]In the year leading up to the May 1, 1971 start of Amtrak, most basic system plans for Amtrak included a Detroit-Cincinnati route. Despite their high ridership and operating performance potential, this was ultimately omitted from the final basic system due to a lack of interest from Ohio's Congressional Delegation. We believe one of the reasons why this was the case was because it did not connect to a Chicago-Florida train called the Floridian which bypassed Ohio. That train was discontinued in 1979 due to poor track conditions. All Aboard Ohio believes that Midwest-Florida rail services that are routed mostly on Norfolk Southern (NS)- owned or NS-leased tracks (the Cincinnati-Chattanooga portion is owned by the City of Cincinnati) between Detroit-Toledo-Columbus-Cincinnati-Lexington-Chattanooga-Atlanta- Jacksonville-Orlando (link with All Aboard Florida to Miami and buses to Tampa) would attract significant ridership. The operating subsidy could range from $43 million to $60 million per year and significant capital costs on this route, possibly up to $343 million for passing sidings, rolling stock, track connections in Toledo and Chattanooga, and about 18 new stations are envisioned. [/SIZE]
- [SIZE=10pt]Start Up Cost 167-343M. Annual Cost 43-60M. Economic Impact 1.372 Billion[/SIZE]
Overall I find their plans very interesting. I think their routings and timings might need some tweaking but it isn't that bad. And I think they might be onto something. And as far as future advocacy for service extensions the economic impact being higher then all costs might be something to tout.