Will Amtrak permanently re-route the CL / LSL

[jis]

Nobody as far as I know is talking about running a train TOL-DET-CHI. All that I have heard is Toledo - Dearborn - Chicago, so what can or cannot be done at Detroit is a non-issue.

Neorden, the time difference today is considerably more than 2 hours.

CHI - Dearborn today is 5 hours to 5:15 assuming all stations can be handled with single stop and a long train like LSL more than likely will require double spotting at any station with significant on and off.

Dearborn to Toledo today is 2 hours or more, let us call it two for arguments sake.

So the total time is 7 to 7:15 via Dearborn today, though in reality for a long train making all stops it is probably more like 7:30 - 7:45.

Chicago - Toledo via SOB today is 4:20.

The difference thus is more like 3 to 3:30 in today's track and running conditions.

After completion of track work etc. assume that Porter - Dearborn running time is reduced by an hour and Dearborn to Toledo by half an hour. That brings the difference down to 1:30 to 2, which is roughly what I was thinking. I was assuming 2 because past experience show that my lower estimate has never come to pass. Of course if by some miracle more money is spent on upgrading Dearborn - Toledo then that number could go down to the 1:15 vicinity.

 

[railbuck]

Especially if MI is looking to add a frequency to the Wolverines once they have Talgos and/or the new bilevels:

I think it would make more sense to run one of the Wolverines down to TOL rather than reroute the LSL or CL through MI. This would allow an all-rail connection (rather than rail-bus-rail) from the MI stops to/from the east with a change of trains in TOL. The current schedule of 354, if it went from Dearborn to TOL rather than Pontiac, would meet the LSL (most of the time these days it would meet the CL too :angry: ), or a 10pm arrival in TOL (departing CHI around 2pm) would allow connections to both. In the other direction, 8am from TOL and 2pm into CHI (between 351 and 353) would allow a bit of padding for late westbound connections.

 

[railiner]

However, from Amtrak's point of view -- being prohibited from running short-haul trains on its own account (sigh) -- rerouting the LSL through Detroit might actually be good for the bottom line. Not with the tracks as they *currently* are, but as they will be in a few years. An hour's difference in running time is peanuts compared to the amounts lost due to unreliable dispatching on freight-controlled tracks, unfortunately, and not very big compared to the overall running time, either. If the route were substantially more reliable on timekeeping than the current route, the increased Detroit/Lansing ridership might well be worth more than the lost through-ridership. Anyway, it's something which a business planner at Amtrak ought to be analyzing in a couple of years.

The effective difference won't be an hour. it will be more like two to two and a half hour, with a little bit of luck. In order to preserve connectivity in Chicago this will mean a 1pm-ish departure from NYP, and 10am-ish from BOS westbound. Eastbound it will be more workable specially with the proposed earlier departure at around 6pm, arriving into New York around 6pm.
My guess though is that nothing will happen for quite a while yet. Just like with all PIPs, there will be much bloviating and that will be about it.

A 6:00 PM (ct) departure from Chicago, and then not arriving in New York City until 6:00 PM (et)? That is an awful long time for that distance....23 hours, when you consider the PRR did it for a while in 15:30, and even Amtrak at one time did it in 18.....

 

[reppin_the_847]

In today's post 9/11 era, would there be a way to run an LSL type train via Michigan and into Buffalo, NY via Canada without actually making a single stop in Canada? And therefore eliminate the need to run passport checks at the orders or within Canada or is this legally not possible? It seems that Ontario currently creates a huge bottleneck for Metro Detroiters and Michiganders venturing into Upstate NY unfortunately.

 

[jis]

The bigger issue will be that LSL missing Toledo and Cleveland would not make sense.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[neroden]

In today's post 9/11 era, would there be a way to run an LSL type train via Michigan and into Buffalo, NY via Canada without actually making a single stop in Canada?

Even if it were legally possible, unfortunately, the tracks on which this was formerly done (the Canada Southern) have been allowed to fall into ruin. The route which is available would have to follow the Maple Leaf route to Hamilton and then work their way west through a mass of freight traffic. To get to Detroit/Dearborn, it would have to follow an even more convoluted route. I doubt it would be an improvement.

Jis, what you write indicates, bluntly, that there's a lot of padding in the Michigan line schedule. Don't assume that the same amount of padding would be added to a rerouted LSL or CL, because that would be silly; they already have lots of padding. Calculating improved runtime based on mileage (which I did) is going to give more realistic results than calculating it based on the current padded runtimes (which you did). You're right about the issue of platform lengths; it might call for lengthening some platforms, which is never a bad thing, but does cost money. I'm not sure how long the platforms are at each station in Michigan anyway... they used to be looooong, but some have been rebuilt in an inferior fashion since then.

 

[jis]

Jis, what you write indicates, bluntly, that there's a lot of padding in the Michigan line schedule. Don't assume that the same amount of padding would be added to a rerouted LSL or CL, because that would be silly; they already have lots of padding. Calculating improved runtime based on mileage (which I did) is going to give more realistic results than calculating it based on the current padded runtimes (which you did). You're right about the issue of platform lengths; it might call for lengthening some platforms, which is never a bad thing, but does cost money. I'm not sure how long the platforms are at each station in Michigan anyway... they used to be looooong, but some have been rebuilt in an inferior fashion since then.

I used to do exactly that. Experience has taught me that the reality of passenger rail in the US, even on Amtrak operated property is inconsistent with what I calculated using distance and speed projections. So we will just have to wait and see what happens. Believe me I will be more than happy to see those running times you proposed actually realized, but I am not holding my breath.
Bottom line is that in the best case scenario with Dearborn - Toledo upgraded considerably I suspect the net net will be about one additional hour after all is aid and done, and that would make the rerouting of the LSL more feasible than it is at the present time. Another thing is, just like on the NEC I suspect that the LD train will hold lower priority on the MI Corridor than the Wolverines, which will necessitate keeping some excessive padding in place, specially if more Wolverines start running.

Trust me I am not trying to be difficult or obdurate. I am just trying to bring some realities that I have observed over the years into the discussion. I keep hoping that they will change, but they have not over decades now.

What is truly irritating is that even when you give Amtrak a long enough platform they will open precisely three doors and insist on checking everyone's ticket at the door as slowly as possible. Se the LSL operation in upstate NY these days. And they insist on doing this even when they are double spotting. Sigh....

 

[neroden]

What is truly irritating is that even when you give Amtrak a long enough platform they will open precisely three doors and insist on checking everyone's ticket at the door as slowly as possible. Se the LSL operation in upstate NY these days. And they insist on doing this even when they are double spotting. Sigh....

We need to figure out some way to get that fixed, but I can't figure out what the political pressure point is.
At Syracuse they do open all the doors of the LSL, but they still look at everyone's tickets at the door, which is a bit crazy because they go back through and check them again onboard. But at Utica they will open only one door and be verrrrry slow about going through everyone's tickets....

Fixing those procedures -- which are apparently against Amtrak policy already (!) -- would definitely have benefits, but I haven't been able to spot who to lean on to get it done, and what sort of group to use as a lever to lean on them.

 

[PerRock]

In today's post 9/11 era, would there be a way to run an LSL type train via Michigan and into Buffalo, NY via Canada without actually making a single stop in Canada? And therefore eliminate the need to run passport checks at the orders or within Canada or is this legally not possible? It seems that Ontario currently creates a huge bottleneck for Metro Detroiters and Michiganders venturing into Upstate NY unfortunately.

I've always thought they could probably get away with having a sealed train to ease up on border crossings. Basically once it crossed into Ontario, you couldn't get on or off from it. However in all likelihood the ON section would be run by VIA and there isn't much incentive for them to run a sealed Amtrak train.

Also when Amtrak & VIA have run a train thru Michigan (The International) it went thru Port Huron & Sarnia. Again the Detroit station isn't really well positioned for running an international train. However it could be possible if the station was moved back to the Michigan Central Station.

peter

 

[reppin_the_847]

Does anyone think this could be a greater possibility (LSL or Cap Ltd running through Michigan then down DER to TOL) once Amtrak acquires the Kalamazoo to Dearborn section of the track in addition to the Porter, IN to Kalamazoo, MI stretch? This really is some interesting food for thought. And Metro Detroit is undoubtedly the 2nd largest Metro area in the entire Midwest outside of Chicago. It has more than 5 million people as I think someone else pointed out.

Plenty of NY Tri-State area students also happen to attend the elite University of Michigan in Ann Arbor as well. Many of these same folks also head back to NY for jobs afterwards as well.

 

[PerRock]

Does anyone think this could be a greater possibility (LSL or Cap Ltd running through Michigan then down DER to TOL) once Amtrak acquires the Kalamazoo to Dearborn section of the track in addition to the Porter, IN to Kalamazoo, MI stretch?

Amtrak basically already has that stretch. It's currently owned bu the state of Michigan, which is upgrading the line for high speed running. The trouble spot at this point isn't in Michigan, but the section in Indiana. All MoW on the Michigan Line (to Dearborn) is being done by Amtrak (trucks from Bear, DE). NS now leases track rights from MDOT for the couple trains they run (I think it's only 2).

peter

 

[railiner]

In today's post 9/11 era, would there be a way to run an LSL type train via Michigan and into Buffalo, NY via Canada without actually making a single stop in Canada? And therefore eliminate the need to run passport checks at the orders or within Canada or is this legally not possible? It seems that Ontario currently creates a huge bottleneck for Metro Detroiters and Michiganders venturing into Upstate NY unfortunately.

I've always thought they could probably get away with having a sealed train to ease up on border crossings. Basically once it crossed into Ontario, you couldn't get on or off from it. However in all likelihood the ON section would be run by VIA and there isn't much incentive for them to run a sealed Amtrak train.

Also when Amtrak & VIA have run a train thru Michigan (The International) it went thru Port Huron & Sarnia. Again the Detroit station isn't really well positioned for running an international train. However it could be possible if the station was moved back to the Michigan Central Station.

peter

If a train such as the former Niagara Rainbow (New York-Buffalo-Detroit) could be restored as original, it would not have to be jointly operated with VIA, (wasn't originally), any more than Amtrak was involved (wasn't) in VIA's Atlantic Limited, which made a few stops in Maine...

It would only be appropriate to jointly operate such a train if it operated over the same points as already served by the other carrier, as in the former International, or the Maple Leaf does (used to be a second Niagara Falls-Toronto local train)....

 

[andersone]

In sixth grade Miss Rayome taught me Distance = Rate X Time

then I rode the EB and learned a new equation

Distance = Rate x Time + Four Hours

 

[neroden]

Nobody as far as I know is talking about running a train TOL-DET-CHI. All that I have heard is Toledo - Dearborn - Chicago, so what can or cannot be done at Detroit is a non-issue.

Neorden, the time difference today is considerably more than 2 hours.

CHI - Dearborn today is 5 hours to 5:15 assuming all stations can be handled with single stop and a long train like LSL more than likely will require double spotting at any station with significant on and off.

Dearborn to Toledo today is 2 hours or more, let us call it two for arguments sake.

Interesting. Relatively cheap upgrades available there. If the track is really running at less than 30 mph... which it shouldn't be, it's better than Class 2 track surely...

So the total time is 7 to 7:15 via Dearborn today, though in reality for a long train making all stops it is probably more like 7:30 - 7:45.

Chicago - Toledo via SOB today is 4:20.

or 7:20 based on recent arrivals. If you see my point.

 

[Chris Malayter]

One could argue that since the State of Michigan owns the AARR track from Ann Arbor to Toledo that they could upgrade this segment to 110mph to support a reroute. It would bypass Dearborn/Detroit, but it would shave some distance and allow dispatch control over the right of way. Combine that with a south of the lake upgrade, I think Amtrak would be insane to keep running over the existing path. Add that with discussions over adding service from AA to Traverse City/Pelston/Alma etc, it would turn Ann Arbor into the eastern Michigan rail hub. Win Win.

 

[jis]

One could argue anything that one pleases, but at present there are neither any plans nor any money for running any rail service between Dearborn and Toledo at any speed, let alone at 110mph.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum

 

[Steve4031]

Where exactly does this connect to the current route. I briefly looked at a map, and the one direct Toledo-Ann Arbor route does not appear to even connect to the current route. It crossed over on a bridge west of the current station.

Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't make sense at all for Michigan to entirely skip Detroit/Dearborn with a lsl routing through Michigan. Detroit/Dearborn represents the largest population center in the state.

IMHO it's better to upgrade the lake cities routing. This at least allows Detroit area passengers to get on in Dearborn for a 1 seat ride to the east coast.

 

[Chris]

Not saying there is a plan. Clearly the Kalamazoo-Dearborn upgrades, south of the lake alternatives, and the new trainsets are the priorities. The State of Michigan is not in the business of supporting Amtrak's LD trains. Just throwing out that the State of Michigan owns right of way from Toledo to Ann Arbor that could easily be used for a re-route. It would take federal funding and some creative negotiations, but it is completely conceivable to have 110mph from Toledo to Porter Junction with the current track owned by the public.

 

[Chris]

Where exactly does this connect to the current route. I briefly looked at a map, and the one direct Toledo-Ann Arbor route does not appear to even connect to the current route. It crossed over on a bridge west of the current station.

Unless I'm missing something, this doesn't make sense at all for Michigan to entirely skip Detroit/Dearborn with a lsl routing through Michigan. Detroit/Dearborn represents the largest population center in the state.

IMHO it's better to upgrade the lake cities routing. This at least allows Detroit area passengers to get on in Dearborn for a 1 seat ride to the east coast.

I have zero knowledge of the Toledo interlocking. I'm making the assumption that there is a way to get from A to Z in Toledo.

If you add the Detroit and Dearborn Amtrak boardings in 2014, they are still less than Ann Arbor. If the priorities are to add ridership and limit the time added, cutting out Detroit and Dearborn, while allowing their customers to transfer via the Wolverine at Ann Arbor, the AARR path is ideal if you can get to it from the TOL station.

 

[Steve4031]

I'm referring to the connection in Ann Arbor. When examining these scenarios I try to see if there are back up moves involved to reach current stations. These types of things severely limit the likelihood of some routing a being used. I think if there was a stop for this service in Dearborn, the ridership would increase at this station.

 

[PerRock]

There is no connection between the current MDOT/NS/Amtrak "Michigan Line" and the Ann Arbor RR's line. There was a connection eons ago, and the right of way is still there (technically the track is too, but not connected & over grown). The connection is also west of the Ann Arbor train station, so for a routing like that you would be skipping Ann Arbor as well. It's also not a good connection place anyways, it is a very steep grade* & requires a reverse move to even got over onto the siding that once formed part of the connection.

peter

*The former connection is approx. 735ft long, and rises ~20ft, if that that gives you any idea of how steep it is. Here is the spot in Google Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2910839,-83.7470992,3a,75y,337.4h,59.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sScTpbHvyZ2Sz6TGSUgx8tw!2e0

PS; I'm not actually sure MDot owns the Ann Arbor RR's trackage. I thought it was still owned by Watco, although I think the trackage north of Ann Arbor (where the GLC runs) is owned by the state.

Edit: Ya MDOT doesn't own the AAR tracks between A2 & TOL, they own the track from A2 north (GLC property). Here is a map of all the track MDOT owns: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOTStateOwnedRail_330121_7.pdf (from MDOT)

 

[mustangthz]

There is no connection between the current MDOT/NS/Amtrak "Michigan Line" and the Ann Arbor RR's line. There was a connection eons ago, and the right of way is still there (technically the track is too, but not connected & over grown). The connection is also west of the Ann Arbor train station, so for a routing like that you would be skipping Ann Arbor as well. It's also not a good connection place anyways, it is a very steep grade* & requires a reverse move to even got over onto the siding that once formed part of the connection.

peter

*The former connection is approx. 735ft long, and rises ~20ft, if that that gives you any idea of how steep it is. Here is the spot in Google Streetview: https://www.google.com/maps/@42.2910839,-83.7470992,3a,75y,337.4h,59.34t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sScTpbHvyZ2Sz6TGSUgx8tw!2e0

PS; I'm not actually sure MDot owns the Ann Arbor RR's trackage. I thought it was still owned by Watco, although I think the trackage north of Ann Arbor (where the GLC runs) is owned by the state.

Edit: Ya MDOT doesn't own the AAR tracks between A2 & TOL, they own the track from A2 north (GLC property). Here is a map of all the track MDOT owns: http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOTStateOwnedRail_330121_7.pdf (from MDOT)

You are correct, did some more digging, it is owned by Watco. I can't imagine that segment is very busy, two passenger trains a day shouldn't set the new Ann Arbor Railroad back too badly!

Looks like the AARR track goes over the Amtrak track as well, there is no connection. With all the businesses and residences near that junction it certainly would not be easy to connect the two lines. I'm curious how they plan on connecting the lines under the plan to extend service from Ann Arbor to Traverse City.

-Chris

 

[PerRock]

I haven't heard of a plan to run passenger trains to Traverse City. However the more immediate plan is to run trains from Ann Arbor to Brighton on the AAR & GLC tracks, known as the WALLY commuter train. WALLY will not connect to Amtrak at all. Before AAR was owned by Watco, WALLY couldn't even come into the city limits, they would put a station as far south on the GLC track as possible (Pontiac Trail basically) and bus people the rest of the way. Now that AAR is owned by Watco (which is way more passenger friendly then AAR ever was) the talk is to move that station (which doesn't exist, just the plans) closer to UM North Campus and to put another one, basically in Ferry Yard (down by the stadium). The biggest problem I see with this WALLY plan, is that I just don't see the ridership there, really A3TA just needs to run a few buses up US23, not spend huge amounts of taxpayer money on a train that will hardly be used.

I would presume any other far-fetched plans to have trains head even further north would use those station sites, and not connect to the Michigan Line.

-----

On a side note, the tracks & the right of way for the connector are still there. The switches would have to be reconnected, the forest cleared out, tracks re-lain, and the road crossing re-instated. It is still doable, but it just isn't a good place for a connection. If/When AAR interchanges with NS (the freight on that line) they do it in Milan, which has a much better interchange. The AAR connector probably made more sense when there were yards in Ann Arbor.

AAR usually runs 1 train thru (there & back) A2 a day to interchange with GLC; it's done on an as-needed basis (GLC calls AAR & tells them they're heading south, so AAR heads north to meet them). There are a few more trains that run from Toledo to Milan & to Saline but I don't know how many. But yes it's a lightly used line, with a very low speed limit.

peter