LSL Michigan Reroute Rumors & Speculation

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?

Let's assume +2 hrs for the Michigan reroute.

LSL:

I'd agree with jjs as to leave westbound 2 hours earlier. That would have the train leave BUF around 10pm instead of midnight and as Nate said all of the upstate New York cities see service 2 hours earlier. Westbound I'd probably compromise and have the LSL leave at 8:30pm and arrive in NYP at 7:23pm and BOS at 9:01pm just to reduce the number of missed connections if you moved the LSL to 7:30pm.

CL:

Westbound the train could leave at 2:05pm to maintain the same time. It would cut the transfer time from the SM and Crescent, I don't believe the SS connection from 92 to 29 is guaranteed now anyway. The train would leave PGH two hours earlier (10pm) and would cut the transfer time from the Pennsylvanian in PGH in half ! This would get the CL to CLE before midnight (the westbound LSL would still arrive in CLE after midnight with the reroute). Eastbound the train can't leave CHI any earlier. That would arrive in PGH at 7:05am. You'd have to move the eastbound Pennsylvanian back to account for it. You could have the train leave PGH at 9am which would get the train into NYP after 6pm so that could free up a rush hour slot in Penn Station. I don't think that would be drastically worse than the current schedule and the two hour wait in PGH would be 7-9am rather than 5-7:30am. The train then arrives in WAS at 3:05pm which cuts the wait time to the southern transfers (even though you lose the CL-SS connection).

Michigan passengers would then get direct access to WAS and can transfer there to southern stops or to the rest of the NEC.

I would probably favor a CL reroute as opposed to a LSL reroute but I'm biased.

 

[fairviewroad]

So why is the Capital Limited not getting impacted.

West bound the two trains run one hour apart.

Capital Limited arrives 0845 hrs in Chicago.

Lake Shore Limited arrives 0945 hrs in Chicago.

East bound

Capital Limited leaves Chicago at 1840 hrs.

Lake Shore Limite leaves Chicago at 2130 hrs.

Unless the MOW is working at night, the morning run are right in top of each other. So if one is impacted the other must also be impacted.

Makes no sense.

There is a scenario under which it makes sense.

Let's say that of the four trains, only the eastbound LSL is affected by the trackwork window. BUT let's say that Amtrak is piggybacking on the trackwork situation in order to genuinely use this is a "test" re-route. In that case, for it to be an effective test, you'd have to reroute the LSL in both directions, even if only the eastbound train is affected by the trackwork.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?

Let's assume +2 hrs for the Michigan reroute.

LSL:

I'd agree with jjs as to leave westbound 2 hours earlier. That would have the train leave BUF around 10pm instead of midnight and as Nate said all of the upstate New York cities see service 2 hours earlier. Westbound I'd probably compromise and have the LSL leave at 8:30pm and arrive in NYP at 7:23pm and BOS at 9:01pm just to reduce the number of missed connections if you moved the LSL to 7:30pm.

CL:

Westbound the train could leave at 2:05pm to maintain the same time. It would cut the transfer time from the SM and Crescent, I don't believe the SS connection from 92 to 29 is guaranteed now anyway. The train would leave PGH two hours earlier (10pm) and would cut the transfer time from the Pennsylvanian in PGH in half ! This would get the CL to CLE before midnight (the westbound LSL would still arrive in CLE after midnight with the reroute). Eastbound the train can't leave CHI any earlier. That would arrive in PGH at 7:05am. You'd have to move the eastbound Pennsylvanian back to account for it. You could have the train leave PGH at 9am which would get the train into NYP after 6pm so that could free up a rush hour slot in Penn Station. I don't think that would be drastically worse than the current schedule and the two hour wait in PGH would be 7-9am rather than 5-7:30am. The train then arrives in WAS at 3:05pm which cuts the wait time to the southern transfers (even though you lose the CL-SS connection).

Michigan passengers would then get direct access to WAS and can transfer there to southern stops or to the rest of the NEC.

I would probably favor a CL reroute as opposed to a LSL reroute but I'm biased.

I would prefer the CL-SS connection to be made available in both directions, but if that is not an option than the CL may be a better train for a schedule change. (I am also biased as two of my most common routings are CHI-RGH and CHI-TPA).

 

[neroden]

Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?

The addressable market says LSL. There's a lot of Michigan-Upstate NY, Michigan-New England, and Michigan-NYC social connections, due to previous migration patterns. Not as much between Michigan and DC or the South. Dunno why, that's just the way it is.
Anecdote: my two friends who visit Michigan yearly are in upstate NY. Rerouting the CL does *nothing* for them. Think about it. Can you think of someone benefitted substantially by a CL reroute and not by an LSL reroute? They'd have to be going between Michigan and Pittsburgh, I think. Much larger markets from Michigan-upstate NY.

It would be ideal if the trains could be scheduled to allow a transfer in Toledo (so westbound CL arrives before westbound LSL in Toledo, and eastbound LSL arrives before eastbound CL in Toledo), but the one-seat ride from Michigan should be on the LSL.

Or you could reroute both of them. If the Dearborn-Toledo track can be sped up (a serious question) it may make sense to reroute both of them (sorry, Waterloo and Fort Wayne). Waterloo has actually put money into its station, so I think this wouldn't happen. Bryan, Elkhart, and South Bend haven't, and don't seem to care.

 

[reppin_the_847]

Assuming the way to introduce direct East Coast service to/from Michigan is to reroute one of the current daily LD trains between CHI and the NEC (as opposed to adding a third), would it be better to reroute the LSL or the CL?

The addressable market says LSL. There's a lot of Michigan-Upstate NY, Michigan-New England, and Michigan-NYC social connections, due to previous migration patterns. Not as much between Michigan and DC or the South. Dunno why, that's just the way it is.
Anecdote: my two friends who visit Michigan yearly are in upstate NY. Rerouting the CL does *nothing* for them. Think about it. Can you think of someone benefitted substantially by a CL reroute and not by an LSL reroute? They'd have to be going between Michigan and Pittsburgh, I think. Much larger markets from Michigan-upstate NY.

It would be ideal if the trains could be scheduled to allow a transfer in Toledo (so westbound CL arrives before westbound LSL in Toledo, and eastbound LSL arrives before eastbound CL in Toledo), but the one-seat ride from Michigan should be on the LSL.

Or you could reroute both of them. If the Dearborn-Toledo track can be sped up (a serious question) it may make sense to reroute both of them (sorry, Waterloo and Fort Wayne). Waterloo has actually put money into its station, so I think this wouldn't happen. Bryan, Elkhart, and South Bend haven't, and don't seem to care.

Exactly. The New York City metropolitan area arguably sends as much or more students to the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor than the Chicagoland area. A one-seat ride from New York City Manhattan Penn Station to Ann Arbor (MI) changes things a bit. That right there provides an interesting market. A market that may be more open to rail than many other folks.

 

[neroden]

I read a while back (almost 10 years!) that when people call in to Amtrak asking about travel, and request a city pair which Amtrak *cannot do*, the top requested pair is New York to Detroit. I actually *witnessed* a couple asking about train tickets to Detroit at the Syracuse train station, and upon being told that there was a bus connection they turned their noses up and walked away.

Dearborn is close enough to get a lot of that market. It's big.

'Course this'll mean the LSL needs more coaches

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

It's clear NYC/NE is more important to Michigan. But don't forget...

1) What's more important to South Bend/Northern Indiana, NYC or DC?

2) Which route would adding 2 hours to be less of a negative?

I'm not saying there is a right answer but there are multiple factors to consider.

 

[afigg]

It would be ideal if the trains could be scheduled to allow a transfer in Toledo (so westbound CL arrives before westbound LSL in Toledo, and eastbound LSL arrives before eastbound CL in Toledo), but the one-seat ride from Michigan should be on the LSL.

Or you could reroute both of them. If the Dearborn-Toledo track can be sped up (a serious question) it may make sense to reroute both of them (sorry, Waterloo and Fort Wayne). Waterloo has actually put money into its station, so I think this wouldn't happen. Bryan, Elkhart, and South Bend haven't, and don't seem to care.

The route through Michigan adds about 100 miles to the trip. Speeding up the Dearborn to Toledo track can reduce the impact on trip times, but it is not going to make up for the hundred extra miles for through traffic to and from Chicago. With 2 LD trains running fairly close to each other between CHI and Toledo, diverting one of them can work (maybe), but not both.

The LSL currently has a lot of padding in its schedule; the FY2011 PIP report discusses schedule improvements, which I don't recall ever really having been implemented. With the upgrades in Indiana and from SDY through ALB, along with other capacity improvements along the route, Amtrak might be able to reduce the end to end trip time impact on a re-route by trimming trip times on the eastern Empire corridor and on the western end. But I doubt those schedule fixes will be ready to implement in October.

However trip time savings on the eastern Empire corridor are not going help those traveling between Buffalo, Rochester, Erie and Chicago. A re-route through Michigan is going to add at least several hours to the trip. That could hurt business for those city pairs, especially in coach. A re-route through Michigan is a tradeoff, it adds additional markets at the cost of longer trips for other city pairs. OTOH, the additional Michigan markets have 3 to 4 trains a day to Chicago, so those are markets that have remained familiar with passenger train travel, which is a plus. If the re-route happens, we will see how it plays out.

 

[west point]

A consideration: The CL and LSL run so close to same schedule that rerouting LSL works well. 2 trains that close together do not serve the stations west of CLE very well. Not considered so far is the ability to get a much earlier arrival in CHI for Michigan riders and / or later departure from CHI. That will give the Michigan riders many more options for they may take LSL one direction and a Wolverine the other.. Since there appears to many potential passengers Michigan east coast then the Michigan - CHI passengers will be a great fill in. Maybe if this is a test then doing it in October which is a lower passenger demand time then there will be available extra car(s) from other routes.

Massaging the schedules of CL and LSL to provide for cross platform connections at Toledo may really become important for Michigan riders. As well the present CL west of TOL could change to LSL for trips to NE. NS might like the idea of one train running on the markers of the other CLE <> TOL ?

A problem at TOL might be the additional personnel needed to service 2 trains at same time.

A third train CHI <> TOL then becomes more feasible on the CL route. Less need for the South of the Lake work.

 

[pennyk]

According to NARP's 7/22/16 Hotline, this rerouting is a rumor.

... Amtrak can only say that at this point such a routing is very far from reality and is just part of a very high level analysis of options for the future...

More here

 

[TylerP42]

According to NARP's 7/22/16 Hotline, this rerouting is a rumor.

... Amtrak can only say that at this point such a routing is very far from reality and is just part of a very high level analysis of options for the future...

More here

I'll go with my sources... I do not believe that amtrak can officially announce that they are going to, since it's still in planning.

 

[jis]

Tyler, Just wondering if your source still thinks it will take less than four hours and thirty minutes on the route via Dearborn as you initially claimed.

 

[SarahZ]

Tyler, Just wondering if your source still thinks it will take less than four hours and thirty minutes on the route via Dearborn as you initially claimed.

And is this the same source who insisted the Metropolitan Lounge wouldn't allow sleeper/BC arrivals to use the lounge if they were leaving on a coach ticket?

 

[MikefromCrete]

IF this is going to happen. I think October is too soon. This is Amtrak, after all. How long have we been waiting for the switch to be installed at Pittsburgh for through CL-Pennsylvanian cars? Or for delivery of the Viewliner II diners and sleepers? To be successful, it needs the completion of the Michigan higher speed work east of Kalamazoo and the work at Albany station. Two or three years at the earliest.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

How long have we been waiting for the switch to be installed at Pittsburgh for through CL-Pennsylvanian cars?

WAY too long!

 

[jis]

I suspect since 2011 or 2012 or so, and the end is not in sight. This one they could start even tomorrow with two Coaches and a Dinette using the modified shunting plan at PGH. They just don't want to bother. That is pretty much it.

 

[neroden]

Obviously "October" means October of 2159.

 

[neroden]

I suspect since 2011 or 2012 or so, and the end is not in sight. This one they could start even tomorrow with two Coaches and a Dinette using the modified shunting plan at PGH. They just don't want to bother. That is pretty much it.

Deeply irresponsible. It's basically money being left sitting on the table. If there were management in the right place at Amtrak who cared about doing the most with the money they get from Congress, they'd have gotten it done...

 

[JoeBas]

Maybe someone at AMTK just likes seeing our resident BL Fluffer foam at the mouth...

 

[TylerP42]

I'll take the high road and not be a child about this like some, I choose to believe my multiple sources that have told me, I may have misheard something.

 

[Ryan]

By making the comment, you've expressly done the opposite.

The high road would have been to say nothing and let the events that unfold prove out how good your sources are.

 

[SarahZ]

FWIW, Tyler, passive-aggressive comments are no better than childish comments.

I was simply pointing out that your sources are less than credible, given their past history. (I surmise Jis was too, but I don't want to speak for him.)

Disputing information and its sources is part of an educated, mature conversation. It is not "childish". If you can't handle someone questioning/disputing your sources, I hope you don't plan to go to college or present any kind of study in your workplace.

Welcome to adulthood. It sucks. Grab a helmet.

 

[jis]

I was just asking whether given the evidence I presented the source still believes the absurd claim. In response Tyler said he might have misheard his source. So I presume that some of the other disproved claims were also cases of Tyler mishearing and not necessarily the source saying something wrong. That is perfectly fine by me.

 

[SarahZ]

I was just asking whether given the evidence I presented the source still believes the absurd claim. In response Tyler said he might have misheard his source. So I presume that some of the other disproved claims were also cases of Tyler mishearing and not necessarily the source saying something wrong. That is perfectly fine by me.

That makes sense. I misunderstood his latest post.

This is also why I prefer links rather than, "I heard from so-and-so that..." I don't trust the Telephone Game. But I'm a cynic, so take that with a grain of salt.

 

[Palmetto]

I'm late to this party, having been on the road. The following is not quite true:

Amtrak has not purchased the Wolverine route. State of Michigan has. That is a huge difference......

Amtrak owns the ROW between Porter and Kalamazoo. East of Kalamazoo belongs to Michigan.