Michigan to Toledo/East Coast?

[afigg]

I honestly think routing it via the Waterlevel Route via Albany and Buffalo would be the best choice. The question is what slot would work. We have identified that the Maple Leaf as a train that it could run as a section. But lets make a schedule up for the route west of Buffalo. Bold times are in the afternoon per normal timetable practice.

TR 463

DP Buffalo-315

DP Dunkirk 347

DP Erie 515

DP Ashtabula, OH 540

....

The times aren't that bad, I could see it being a very good service, and very Palmetto like. And I used google maps and looked for cities that are similar to Selma, Dillion, and Wilson that are only stops on the Palmetto but not the Silver Meteor. What do you guys think

What is with Dunkirk, Ashtaabula, Cleveland Airport, etc on your schedule? Are you proposing to add new station stops on the route? All of which would slow down an already barely viable trip time for a day train from NYP to Pontiac. Adding new stations costs significant money.

The LSL has a scheduled 14 hours and 15 minutes trip time from NYP to TOL. That trip time includes an extra 1/2+ hour layover at Albany for connecting to the Boston section. The LSL takes about 30 minutes longer (on the official schedule) for NYP to BUF than the Empire service trains so that is padding that a NYP to BUF to TOL to DET-PNT train won't have. Let's be optimistic and say with the funded improvements on the Empire corridor, the NYP-ALB-TOL trip time can be cut of 13:20. Then add 80 minutes for TOL-DET, then another hour for DET to PNT. That is 15 hours and 40 minutes which is pushing it for a day train which needs a buffer for recovery time for a really late train in addition to crew rest and time to service the train.

One problem with running the NYP-TOL train to Detroit and Pontiac is that it skips Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Kalamazoo. all of which currently have more passengers than DET. However, Michigan is working on a Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter train service. so the commuter train could provide connecting service to Dearborn and Ann Arbor at Detroit for the Pontiac to NYP train.

As for routing 2 Wolverines to Toledo, remember the goal of the Michigan corridor is to provide Chicago-Detroit service. A PNT-DET to NYP day train would provide the direct Cleveland and east coast service that most would use over connecting to the CL & LSL at Toledo. Maybe re-routing one Wolverine from CHI to Dearborn to TOL would work, but with only 3 daily Wolverines that would cut DET to only 2 direct trains to CHI. Running one Wolverine slot to TOL as a restored Lake Cities is easier if additional daily Wolverines were to be added.

 

[keelhauled]

IMO the schedule that would benefit the most people would be to run overnight from New York to Cleveland about three hours behind the Lake Shore Limited. If we assume that puts it in Cleveland at about seven, Toledo about nine AM, then it would reach Dearborn at about 10:30. Wolverines are carded for about four hours westbound, which puts you in Chicago at 2:30. Obviously this loses Western connections, but if we assume that the service is primarily for Michigan's benefit, that shouldn't matter, as they have an earlier Wolverine anyway. Eastbound, roughly mirroring the schedule gives you a 1:00ish departure from Chicago, 7:00 at Dearborn, 8:30 at Toledo, 10:45 at Cleveland, and New York at about eleven the next morning. This fills two major gaps in the northeast system--Michigan to the east coast, and palatable times at Cleveland.

The major scheduling problem is it uses 352's slot exactly, and 353's slot roughly. Arbitrarily, I would push 352 to a late morning departure from CHI, and 353 to an early afternoon run from Michigan. It is also completely plausible that running times could be trimmed here and there, 90 minutes Toledo to Dearborn is maybe pessimistic, you can save some time from the LSL's schedule due to a shorter Albany stop, and hopefully Empire Corridor times will be trimmed slightly soon. It would be good to use it to widen the gap between eastbound arrival and westbound departure in NYP. It is of course all pie in the sky, but it's nice to think about.

 

[Seaboard92]

I added the additional cities in mostly in the name of increasing service. Mostly like the Palmetto which calls at town the Meteor or night train skips. That was my reasoning it's a long day. Personally I still prefer making it a night train CLE-NYP. But I see the other route that would be good for a night train being a Three C route. With the night section being NYP-CLE. Either way Ohio gets day service.

 

[Anderson]

On the options for this, I'm inclined to run combined WB at least as far as Albany owing to slot issues outbound from NYP (this service does go "upstream" during the morning rush). I might /concievably/ split the service at Albany (since that's a locomotive depot as-is) but I'd be inclined to do something funky with equipment at Buffalo. Perhaps combine with the Maple Leaf WB and then make both 280 (presently ex Su) and 288 (presently Su) daily (with 288 operating as a stub Niagara-Buffalo for equipment rotation purposes). That gets you an obnoxious time into NYP (though the transfer to a sleeper-equipped 66/67 becomes tolerable at that point since you're not stuck in NYP for hours and hours).

Honestly, I'm slightly more inclined to think that your best bet for passable service here is to get a doubled-up service on one of the routes (Water Level, Broadway, or Capitol) and to then start running some connecting trains (3Cs, Detroit, etc.). Ignoring Pontiac, the problem is that Detroit-New York just hangs out a hair too long to quite work as a day train; the Palmetto really only "gets away with it" because you've got a LOT of 70-79 MPH running south of WAS and north of there it's mostly 125 MPH.

Of course, a lot changes if you can get improvements CLE-TOL[-CHI].

 

[neroden]

I honestly think routing it via the Waterlevel Route via Albany and Buffalo would be the best choice.

I agree.

I have two friends from Michigan who go home at least once (usually twice) per year. Currently they take Amtrak from Syracuse to Toledo and then the bus. They would, of course, take this train. I would be going for Christmas with them but I don't wanna take a bus that far. So I and my fiancee would be on this train too...

Some anecdotal evidence of the strength of the upstate NY - Michigan travel market. Seems stronger than the Michigan - Pennsyvlania market for whatever reason; historical migration patterns, I guess.

 

[jis]

As you might have noticed, I used the same argument to suggest the NYP - ALB - BUF routing for the train to Toledo - Detroit - Pontiac.

 

[neroden]

One problem with running the NYP-TOL train to Detroit and Pontiac is that it skips Dearborn, Ann Arbor, and Kalamazoo. all of which currently have more passengers than DET.

...Another problem is that you just got involved with large amounts of CN trackage. Which is a mistake.

However, Michigan is working on a Ann Arbor to Detroit commuter train service. so the commuter train could provide connecting service to Dearborn and Ann Arbor at Detroit for the Pontiac to NYP train.

I'd prefer to run the train TOL-Dearborn-Ann Arbor (etc) and use the commuter service to get people from Dearborn to Detroit, should they need to do so.

Maybe re-routing one Wolverine from CHI to Dearborn to TOL would work, but with only 3 daily Wolverines

....Remember, Michigan is planning to have at least 4 daily Wolverines after the upgrades on the line are completed. (I think the long-term goal was 7?).Once there are lots of frequencies, it becomes easier for more of them to go to Toledo.

 

[neroden]

According to the Amtrak schedules, it is 234 track miles from CHI to Toledo and 271 track miles from CHI to Dearborn. So add 60 to 70 miles from Toledo to the connection to the Wolverine route on the west side of Detroit and the route through MI to Toledo does add roughly 100 miles over the direct CHI to Toledo route.

Ah, got it. However:
234 track miles at 79 mph == 2.96 hours

271 track miles at 90 mph == 3.0 hours

Both routes will run slower than top speed, but you get the point. The Michigan Line is being sped up and the NS Chicago Line isn't.

In actual fact the runtime difference is going to be largely due to the much larger number of stations on the Michigan route -- 10 intermediate stations versus 4. Since all the Michigan Line stations are in actual cities, this is probably a tradeoff worth making... but of course it's possible to skip some of them.

Looking at the map, the NS track from Toledo to Detroit is remarkably straight, so there is no need to spend money on curve reductions for faster track speeds. Probably umpteen grade crossings on the route that might have to be upgraded for 79 mph passenger train speeds if that to be the goal.

Much of it is grade-separated, but there are a fair number of grade crossings. And you have to do all four tracks, which may be on up to three different signalling systems, which makes it a pain.
Most of the problems I would expect actually would be freight traffic interference, so there might be additional signalling and siding work required. I'd expect basically the whole route would need resignalling, and that would be the bulk of the cost.

But with the extra distance, the best that can probably be realistically achieved is to add 1.5 hours to the CHI-TOL trip times for a restored Lake Cities service. I not arguing against the concept of restoring a MI to Toledo service (and while we at it, restoring a daily train through Michigan to Toronto), but one should be realistic about the likely trip times.

The shortest Dearborn-Toledo route is 59 miles. 8 miles of that is slow (maybe 30 mph), and 2 miles from Dearborn to the curves isn't enough time to get up to speed. So call it 10 miles at 30 mph and 49 miles at 80 mph. I get 56.75 minutes -- leave room for acceleration and deceleration and call it an hour even.

I say you can get the trip time down to 1 hour more than the trip times on the current route if you only make four stops in Michigan, or 1 1/2 hours more if you do all ten stops. All the Michigan Line improvements need to be finished and you need to resignal Detroit-Toledo and possibly redo some junctions, which is expensive. Something will probably have to be done to improve the Trail Creek Bridge in Michigan City. And honestly you probably need South of the Lake to really make it all worthwhile.

-----

The value of the one-hour Dearborn-Toledo connection to Michigan is significant. It would probably attract local passengers from Ann Arbor to Toledo, even though it's longer than driving (not all college students have cars). Which is why I figure the priority should be to revive the Lake Cities -- get it on the State of Michigan's to-do list.

It seems straightforward arrange it to make connections with the LSL and CL at Toledo, which allows for the Michigan - NY traffic and the Michigan-PA/WAS traffic.

Michigan is also investigating a Holland-Grand Rapids-Lansing-Howell - (Ann Arbor or Detroit) route. This would be an even better route to extend to Toledo.

 

[neroden]

IMO the schedule that would benefit the most people would be to run overnight from New York to Cleveland about three hours behind the Lake Shore Limited....

The major scheduling problem is it uses 352's slot exactly, and 353's slot roughly. Arbitrarily, I would push 352 to a late morning departure from CHI, and 353 to an early afternoon run from Michigan.

We get similar scheduling problems if we try to run an independent Lake Cities connecting to the LSL & CL at Toledo; it lands square in the slot of an existing train to Pontiac, which then has to be shifted around to some other slot.
So I think the thing to do is to try to come up with some (multiple) conceptual scheduling ideas (and by conceptual I mean vague, just getting the "this has to connect with this, this has to arrive before 9 AM" type stuff") work out the obvious bugs (we can't figure out what CN or NS will complain about, but we can predict other sorts of complaints about schedule). Then we can present them to Michigan DOT for future inclusion in their long-range rail plan, or to Amtrak for future ridership studies, or whatever..

 

[Seaboard92]

The only problem I see with combining the Maple Leaf to the Lake Cities is the same problem the Lake Shore Limited has. It's constantly having to make double spots, and losing time because of that. I honestly see this NYP-DET market almost worthy of a night train and a day train. The night train running NYP-BUF at night. And the rest in daylight. I think we could come up with several timetables. Which station has better ridership Detroit or Dearborn? I was surprised with how short the platform in Detroit is.

 

[jis]

We may wish to get hold of Bruce Becker and the ESPA gang (if they happen to be awake that is) to play the New York angle of the East Coast to Michigan service. I can't think of anyone credible in Pennsylvania off the top of my head right now, but as I said I think the via NY State routing holds more immediate promise anyway, and also minor scheduling challenges in conjunction with the Empire Service.

I suppose the NYP - BUF at night could be the sort of slot that the old Niagara Rainbow overnight New York - Toronto service had for a short while. It also add s a consistent late evening departure out of New York into the Empire Corridor time table.

 

[neroden]

ESPA's not functional right now. Website not working for months means it's not a functioning organization. I'm sorry I don't have the brain energy to revive it right now, there's a lot in my personal life occupying it.