Revised Wolverine schedule starting 1/22/18

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Had a quick Chicago-Detroit roundtrip yesterday (1-25) 350 there and 355 back. Well patronized trains both ways but especially coming back. Arrived in Det 3 min late at 1:43pm, the Q-Line streetcar was just pulling up and I was in the Detroit Insitute of Arts by 2:00pm. Quick tip is you can actually buy a streetcar ticket after you board if you don't have time to use the ticket machine on the platform.

The Art museum's permanant collection is great and they have a special Monet exhibit at the moment which was cool. Afterwards I got a Strombolli, some soup, and a glass of wine at the Garden Bowl--Majestic a little further down Woodward before heading back to the station.

355 home had good crowds at Detroit, Dearborn, Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo and arrived 10 minutes early into Chicago at 10:15pm. At Dearborn eastbound 352 was in the station at the same time and used the track farthest from the station.

So the trains can make this new quicker schedule but there is very little padding so everything has to go pretty much exactly right until they raise the speeds some more.

Still feels much much better than a few years ago. Too bad there isn't an extra frequency or new equipment to go along with it yet.
 
Had a quick Chicago-Detroit roundtrip yesterday (1-25) 350 there and 355 back. Well patronized trains both ways but especially coming back. Arrived in Det 3 min late at 1:43pm, the Q-Line streetcar was just pulling up and I was in the Detroit Insitute of Arts by 2:00pm. Quick tip is you can actually buy a streetcar ticket after you board if you don't have time to use the ticket machine on the platform.

The Art museum's permanant collection is great and they have a special Monet exhibit at the moment which was cool. Afterwards I got a Strombolli, some soup, and a glass of wine at the Garden Bowl--Majestic a little further down Woodward before heading back to the station.

355 home had good crowds at Detroit, Dearborn, Ann Arbor and Kalamazoo and arrived 10 minutes early into Chicago at 10:15pm. At Dearborn eastbound 352 was in the station at the same time and used the track farthest from the station.

So the trains can make this new quicker schedule but there is very little padding so everything has to go pretty much exactly right until they raise the speeds some more.

Still feels much much better than a few years ago. Too bad there isn't an extra frequency or new equipment to go along with it yet.
Glad to hear the new scheduling was met and that you enjoyed your brief visit to Detroit! The Detroit Art Institute is a great place to spend time at.

I’ll be using some AGR points for my wife and I to enjoy a weekend in Chicago in late May, traveling from the relatively new Dearborn station. Perhaps they’ll have some of the updated coaches or Business Class cars in place by then. 2018 is when they are supposed to begin deployment on Michigan Services.

BTW, plans are in the works for a new Ann Arbor station east of the current one near the U-M Medical Center. It should be a great improvement for the Wolverine’s busiest station.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
yeah no delays of more than a couple minutes on either NS or Amtrak this trip. These trains both stop at all stations except albion so you have a little time just for that. Probably the nicest feeling is coming in and out of Dearborn and Detroit at a good speed where you used to crawl.
 
Not to hijack this thread too much but....

Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
Your statement does not hold up in practice. We've been through this before in the Who sets speed restrictions through towns? thread. Funny, this thread started with the same town. At any rate, I posted a few examples of how a state imposed their speed through a town and how another town took it upon themselves to ticket trains that blocked grade crossings as they sat at a stop signals.

We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.

So, there are plenty of local and state laws that often impose stringer actions on railroads than federal regulations.
There may be examples of local efforts to impose speed restrictions through state statute or local ordinance, but they are unenforceable once they are appealed to federal courts. A ticket is moot if it can't be enforced. Railroads have federal preemption regarding their operations, with the sole exceptions of blocking or safety problems at public crossings. The feds allow states authority to regulate safety and movement at public crossings. Outside of the imposition of an unenforceable law, there are plenty of examples where railroads have agreed to voluntarily reduce speed in a community in exchange for the closure of crossings or other tradeoffs concerning noise, safety or convenience.

Aside from track and crossing conditions affecting track speed, there is a curve just east of Albion which limits train speed in the area. Also, the track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn is owned by the state of Michigan. Although unlikely, it's entirely possible that an influential legislator has requested Michigan DOT to limit train speeds through Albion.
You stated ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations. This law passed by the Governor of Illinois forcing a reduction of speed from 70mph to 50 mph certainly wasn't voluntary but leaving that out, you then go on to state that the feds allow states authority to regulate safety and movement at public crossings.

Which means that as I stated....it is not true that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations....since as you stated, states and municipalities can and do regulate safety and movement at public crossings.

Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.
Your example is moot. The NJ state law only applies to NJ Transit as that's the only place where it can be enforced, because it's an employer vs employee regulation, not a state vs railroad regulation.
The certification of engineers is addressed in CFR 240. I'm not sure how its moot since the feds empowered the railroads to certify engineers....not the states. Since NJ passed a law to restrict who may get certified as an engineer in their state (which is being upheld pending a lawsuit that stated NJ can not do this), that clearly shows the statement that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations is not true....at least for now.

BTW, those senators from NJ are now lobbying for a change to CFR 240 that would exclude drivers with a DUI or DWI from operating a train. If that law passes or the current NJ law is overturned, my example would indeed by moot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not to hijack this thread too much but....

Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
Your statement does not hold up in practice. We've been through this before in the Who sets speed restrictions through towns? thread. Funny, this thread started with the same town. At any rate, I posted a few examples of how a state imposed their speed through a town and how another town took it upon themselves to ticket trains that blocked grade crossings as they sat at a stop signals.

We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.

So, there are plenty of local and state laws that often impose stringer actions on railroads than federal regulations.
There may be examples of local efforts to impose speed restrictions through state statute or local ordinance, but they are unenforceable once they are appealed to federal courts. A ticket is moot if it can't be enforced. Railroads have federal preemption regarding their operations, with the sole exceptions of blocking or safety problems at public crossings. The feds allow states authority to regulate safety and movement at public crossings. Outside of the imposition of an unenforceable law, there are plenty of examples where railroads have agreed to voluntarily reduce speed in a community in exchange for the closure of crossings or other tradeoffs concerning noise, safety or convenience.

Aside from track and crossing conditions affecting track speed, there is a curve just east of Albion which limits train speed in the area. Also, the track between Kalamazoo and Dearborn is owned by the state of Michigan. Although unlikely, it's entirely possible that an influential legislator has requested Michigan DOT to limit train speeds through Albion.
You stated ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations. This law passed by the Governor of Illinois forcing a reduction of speed from 70mph to 50 mph certainly wasn't voluntary but leaving that out, you then go on to state that the feds allow states authority to regulate safety and movement at public crossings.

Which means that as I stated....it is not true that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations....since as you stated, states and municipalities can and do regulate safety and movement at public crossings.

Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.
Your example is moot. The NJ state law only applies to NJ Transit as that's the only place where it can be enforced, because it's an employer vs employee regulation, not a state vs railroad regulation.
The certification of engineers is addressed in CFR 240. I'm not sure how its moot since the feds empowered the railroads to certify engineers....not the states. Since NJ passed a law to restrict who may get certified as an engineer in their state (which is being upheld pending a lawsuit that stated NJ can not do this), that clearly shows the statement that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations is not true....at least for now.

BTW, those senators from NJ are now lobbying for a change to CFR 240 that would exclude drivers with a DUI or DWI from operating a train. If that law passes or the current NJ law is overturned, my example would indeed by moot.
Your tone is childish. You have hijacked the thread for the sake of pedantry.
 
Regarding the Illinois example, the law (if it's even still on the books) pertains only to Metra, which is an Illinois public agency subject to state funding and board oversight; of course Metra will listen to the governor. If Metra was an independent railroad, the state wouldn't have a say in its operating speeds. Illinois doesn't have authority to regulate the speed of any other railroad.
 
Not to hijack this thread too much but...

Your example is moot ...
...

BTW, those senators from NJ are now lobbying for a change to CFR 240 that would exclude drivers with a DUI or DWI from operating a train. If that law passes or the current NJ law is overturned, my example would indeed be moot.
Your tone is childish. You have hijacked the thread for the sake of pedantry.
Whoa, Son. You are presumptuous and disrespectful to this community to parachute in making a half dozen posts and then telling a senior and well-respected member here who has made over 2,400 posts that he's childish and pedantic. Please chill.
 
Not to hijack this thread too much but...

Your example is moot ...
...

BTW, those senators from NJ are now lobbying for a change to CFR 240 that would exclude drivers with a DUI or DWI from operating a train. If that law passes or the current NJ law is overturned, my example would indeed be moot.
Your tone is childish. You have hijacked the thread for the sake of pedantry.
Whoa, Son. You are presumptuous and disrespectful to this community to parachute in making a half dozen posts and then telling a senior and well-respected member here who has made over 2,400 posts that he's childish and pedantic. Please chill.
Post counts mean nothing. It is the information that matters. He could have 1 post and as long as it is accurate it is as valid and important as a post made by someone with 13,000 posts.

Regarding the Illinois example, the law (if it's even still on the books) pertains only to Metra, which is an Illinois public agency subject to state funding and board oversight; of course Metra will listen to the governor. If Metra was an independent railroad, the state wouldn't have a say in its operating speeds. Illinois doesn't have authority to regulate the speed of any other railroad.
Tone is hard to convey on the internet. You saying my tone was childish based upon my post is akin to me saying your post was confrontational. At this point it, all that matters to me is the message.

This was your statement.

Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations.
Above, you have indicated that Illinois doesn't have the authority regulate the speed of any OTHER railroad....just Metra. However, Metra (as usued in this example) IS a commuter railroad...and Illinois passed a law reducing the speed of the train through an entire town. So, again, this means that your statement that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations has once again been proven to be incorrect...by your own words.

I'm glad you're getting the picture.
default_happy.png
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Municipalities have no legal authority over railroad operations, regardless of any ordinance. Only the federal government can regulate railroad operations. If trains are passing through Albion slowly, it's for safety reasons, such track or road crossing conditions. Albion was a flag stop in the past, which might have affected passenger train speeds somewhat.
We can even look at recent history as an example and witness New Jersey passing a law (over federal regulations regarding certification of engineers) that basically states an engineer with a DUI or DWI may no longer operate a train.
Your example is moot. The NJ state law only applies to NJ Transit as that's the only place where it can be enforced, because it's an employer vs employee regulation, not a state vs railroad regulation.
The certification of engineers is addressed in CFR 240. I'm not sure how its moot since the feds empowered the railroads to certify engineers....not the states. Since NJ passed a law to restrict who may get certified as an engineer in their state (which is being upheld pending a lawsuit that stated NJ can not do this), that clearly shows the statement that ONLY the federal government can regulate railroad operations is not true....at least for now.

BTW, those senators from NJ are now lobbying for a change to CFR 240 that would exclude drivers with a DUI or DWI from operating a train. If that law passes or the current NJ law is overturned, my example would indeed by moot.
The dispute is to whether the state of NJ can remove a currently licensed and operating engineer. Licensing and certification comes after acceptance of employment. If someone applied for a job with a DUI/DWI, they simply wouldn't hire them for the engineer position, which appeared to be the purpose of the law in the first place.

With the current media/lobbying theater for "safer" trains and all this crying for PTC, that change in CFR 240 might actually go through...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Amtrak's website now shows that the Pere Marquette will have a schedule change effective 2/19/18. This is due to an increase in speeds. Anybody know if there are any improvements in time?
 
This may have been what was delaying the proposed reroute of the LSL through Michigan.
The Lake Shore isn't being rerouted through Michigan, 110 mph or not. ... Even with increased speeds, the route would be quite a bit longer than the current routing. Also, the host from Toledo to Dearborn ... wanted nothing to do with the train.
One fine day, as per the dreams of the Ohio Hub, around 8 corridor trains per day will run Cleveland-Toledo-Dearborn (or -Detroit or -Something LOL).
Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati should have happened already. Maybe the next OH governor will be more friendly to rail service.
 
I second GrandRiver's post. I just purchased a Pere Marquette ticket and along with it came a message that CSX has increased speed on the line, meaning a new schedule for 2/18. Anyone have anything to comment?
 
Amtrak's website now shows that the Pere Marquette will have a schedule change effective s the change?
what changes are on the Pere Marquette? The times all look the same to me after 2/19
Yes, that was why I asked -- the schedules don't look different. Maybe its not enough of a speed increase to change the schedule?
yes, weird...not even the departure time from the station of origin...unless maybe they will release that later? The way the alert was worded sounded like times WOULD change and it was only for the PM not all Michigan services...guess we'll see soon!
 
New schedules for the other Michigan trains were released earlier and they do reflect improved running times. Seems strange Amtrak and Michigan would make a big deal about better running times on CSX, yet keep the same schedule. Maybe this means the trains will actually run on time!
 
New schedules for the other Michigan trains were released earlier and they do reflect improved running times. Seems strange Amtrak and Michigan would make a big deal about better running times on CSX, yet keep the same schedule. Maybe this means the trains will actually run on time!
yes - I did see the new times on the Wolverine and Blue Water as I take those regularly too
 
Just got emails from Amtrak with my new departure time from SJM to Chicago...WAS 8:16 am before, now is 8:10 am. Arrives in Chicago 9:08 am instead of 9:11 am...still appears to leave GRR at 6 am, and not sure how much the other 2 stations changed if at all. Departures out of Chicago still at 6:30. In any case it is now showing this on the website.
 
Just got emails from Amtrak with my new departure time from SJM to Chicago...WAS 8:16 am before, now is 8:10 am. Arrives in Chicago 9:08 am instead of 9:11 am...still appears to leave GRR at 6 am, and not sure how much the other 2 stations changed if at all. Departures out of Chicago still at 6:30. In any case it is now showing this on the website.
371:

HOM changes to 6:49 from 6:54

BAM changes to 7:32 from 7:38

370:

SJM changes to 9:13 from 9:15

BAM changes to 9:49 from 9:51

HOM changes to 10:31 from 10:34

GRR changes to 11:34 from 11:39

All changes are effective 2/19/18
 
Well, you go me. I'm stumped. Where is SJM? and where is BAM? or HOM? I'm guessing that GRR is Grand Rapids.

I guess all the true insiders understand the jargon. The rest of us not so much.

When I was younger, I worked for an editor whose most dreaded marginal comment was "DARK". That stood for,

Don't

Assume

Reader

Knows
 
Well, you go me. I'm stumped. Where is SJM? and where is BAM? or HOM? I'm guessing that GRR is Grand Rapids.

I guess all the true insiders understand the jargon. The rest of us not so much.
SJM = St. Joseph, Mich.

BAM = Bangor, Mich.

HOM = Holland, Mich.

GRR = Grand Rapids, Mich.

The Pere Marquette may be the puniest, least interesting route of the Amtrak system, but by golly, it’s our puniest, least interesting route!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
 
Well, you go me. I'm stumped. Where is SJM? and where is BAM? or HOM? I'm guessing that GRR is Grand Rapids.

I guess all the true insiders understand the jargon. The rest of us not so much.

When I was younger, I worked for an editor whose most dreaded marginal comment was "DARK". That stood for,

Don't

Assume

Reader

Knows
Very sorry. I should've been more specific.

Well, you go me. I'm stumped. Where is SJM? and where is BAM? or HOM? I'm guessing that GRR is Grand Rapids.

I guess all the true insiders understand the jargon. The rest of us not so much.
SJM = St. Joseph, Mich.

BAM = Bangor, Mich.

HOM = Holland, Mich.

GRR = Grand Rapids, Mich.

The Pere Marquette may be the puniest, least interesting route of the Amtrak system, but by golly, it’s our puniest, least interesting route!

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum
Thanks for clearing that up for me......and yes, it's ours!
 
Back
Top