Newspaper article about Ohio Corridor

[AAARGH!]

Link to article in the Cleveland Plain Dealer

The corporation chose a direct route between Cleveland and Columbus and opted not to go west to Elyria or east to Akron. It will stop near Cleveland's airport and in Springfield and Dayton, said Nicholson. Stops north of Columbus may include Shelby, Galion and Delaware, Ohio. It may also stop in Hamilton, north of Cincinnati.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

That is fine with me as long as the CL gets re-routed to Akron or we bring back the Broadway Limited to serve Eastern Ohio.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Amtrak said the tracks are in good condition for a train speed of 79 mph, but it might take up to six hours to travel the 250-mile route because of stops. Driving Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati takes about 4½ hours.

That was what I was worried about-- six hours is a little long... love to get it down to five.

 

[George Harris]

Amtrak said the tracks are in good condition for a train speed of 79 mph, but it might take up to six hours to travel the 250-mile route because of stops. Driving Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati takes about 4½ hours.

That was what I was worried about-- six hours is a little long... love to get it down to five.

IF they cannot get it down to five hours, the ridership will be so low it will not be worth running the train. The Califrornia Amtrak trains down the valley have good ridership because they are reasonably close to driving time between significant points, and there are 6 of them, so you don't have to say if I don't make this one, I have several hours lost.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Amtrak said the tracks are in good condition for a train speed of 79 mph, but it might take up to six hours to travel the 250-mile route because of stops. Driving Interstate 71 between Cleveland and Cincinnati takes about 4½ hours.

That was what I was worried about-- six hours is a little long... love to get it down to five.

IF they cannot get it down to five hours, the ridership will be so low it will not be worth running the train. The Califrornia Amtrak trains down the valley have good ridership because they are reasonably close to driving time between significant points, and there are 6 of them, so you don't have to say if I don't make this one, I have several hours lost.

It's 4 1-2 without traffic, with traffic add a half hour at least.

There's no way six hours is going to work... I forget the exact distance on I-71, but it is no more than 400 miles.

 

[guest]

That was what I was worried about-- six hours is a little long... love to get it down to five.

Even the last train that ran between Cleveland and Cincinnati didn't cover that ground in 5 hours, it took a little over 5 and a half.

And the driving comparision is based on driving down I-71, and not heading west to Springfield and Dayton.

[in California] there are 6 of them.

Increased frequency is good, but the budget is tight. My guess is that the Capitol corridor didn't start out with 6 trains a day each way. How many trains were there at the start?

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

That was what I was worried about-- six hours is a little long... love to get it down to five.

Even the last train that ran between Cleveland and Cincinnati didn't cover that ground in 5 hours, it took a little over 5 and a half.

And the driving comparision is based on driving down I-71, and not heading west to Springfield and Dayton.

All well and good-- but the majority of pax won't be going to Dayton or Springfield. They're be going to the three C's.

Besides-- that may be why there is no train today-- because the roads replaced it. If the train cannot replace the roads it will not be a stable investment.

 

[AlanB]

[in California] there are 6 of them.

Increased frequency is good, but the budget is tight. My guess is that the Capitol corridor didn't start out with 6 trains a day each way. How many trains were there at the start?

I'm guessing that George was referring to the San Juoquins, when he said "down the valley."

But to answer your question, the Capitol corridor started with 8 trains per day in each direction and it's now up to 32 daily trains.

 

[George Harris]

[in California] there are 6 of them.

Increased frequency is good, but the budget is tight. My guess is that the Capitol corridor didn't start out with 6 trains a day each way. How many trains were there at the start?

I'm guessing that George was referring to the San Joaquins, when he said "down the valley."

But to answer your question, the Capitol corridor started with 8 trains per day in each direction and it's now up to 32 daily trains.

Yes, I was referring to the San Joaquins. They started with two each way, and found that as they added trains the ridership per each train increased. I would consider the San Joaquin service more equivalent to Ohio than the Capitol corridors, which are basically long distance commuter trains / short haul businessman's trains.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

[in California] there are 6 of them.

Increased frequency is good, but the budget is tight. My guess is that the Capitol corridor didn't start out with 6 trains a day each way. How many trains were there at the start?

I'm guessing that George was referring to the San Joaquins, when he said "down the valley."

But to answer your question, the Capitol corridor started with 8 trains per day in each direction and it's now up to 32 daily trains.

Yes, I was referring to the San Joaquins. They started with two each way, and found that as they added trains the ridership per each train increased. I would consider the San Joaquin service more equivalent to Ohio than the Capitol corridors, which are basically long distance commuter trains / short haul businessman's trains.

I would concur. The primary ridership will likely be college students and families.

 

[Guest_TransAtlantic_*]

I assume this is not the high-speed corridor that's being considered...because the more stops there are, the less effective a line is as a "high speed" system (e.g. Acela)

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I assume this is not the high-speed corridor that's being considered...because the more stops there are, the less effective a line is as a "high speed" system (e.g. Acela)

... Obama's HSR plan is NOT HSR. It is basically a blind stab at trying to make the foundations of an HSR network. The tri-C corridor IS one of the designated corridors for the HSR network... but they will never get that place up to 150mph without significant investment.

And, to be fair, there are only five stops on the proposed route.

 

[clearfork]

There is no chance one could use the 3-C in connecting to a long distance train like the CL unless the 3-C runs at odd hours, the CL or LSL change their times, or one enjoys 8 hour layovers in Cleveland.....?

 

[AAARGH!]

It's 4 1-2 without traffic, with traffic add a half hour at least.
There's no way six hours is going to work... I forget the exact distance on I-71, but it is no more than 400 miles.

It's about 250 miles. I have driven it several times. Add about 1/2 hour for Columbus traffic.

When I attended Ohio State (GO BUCKS!), I would have used it frequently between Cleveland and Columbus. I assume others would do the same from Cincy, etc... Also, politicians/government workers who frequently travel to the state capital might use it.

That being said, is there really a need for a tri-C line? I love trains, but would it be utilized?

 

[MrFSS]

Cincinnati city center to Cleveland city center is exactly 250 miles. I lived in the Columbus area for a number of years and drove to both Cleveland and Cincinnati sometimes several times a week. In my years there I'd say I made the I-71 corridor trip over 500 times.

Here's the problem as it was when I was there, and as it is now. I have discussed this with a lot of Ohio train folks over the years. None of the 3-C cities have that good of a local transportation system. Well, maybe Cleveland does with its rapid transit trains. But Columbus and Cincinnati have next to nothing in bus systems that would help anyone after they take the train to one of the cities. The bus systems are designed to take folks back and forth to the suburbs at rush hour. Further, the stations they would use aren't connected to other transportation systems or, in Cleveland, to the main Rapid Transit station in Terminal Tower. They are talking about having the 3-C station be in a different place from the Amtrak station in Cincinnati, too. Columbus hasn't had a train station in 30 years, so who knows where they would put on in that town.

So, the question becomes, when you take the train from Columbus to Cincinnati, what do you do next to get where you are going? All three cities have much of their business migrated to the suburbs. There is a lot downtown in the cities, but when I traveled to Cleveland, say, I would call on one place in Willoughby, then another in Solon, then lastly in Rocky River. The only way to get to all those places is by car, which I wouldn't have if I took the train. So, unless you were going to the city center after arriving at one of the cities, you would have a real problem. East coast cities, Chicago, LA, etc have great connecting transportations that can take you virtually anywhere in the megalopolis you want to go without the need for a car.

Just my two cents worth.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

I don't think its fair to compare any of these cities to population zones like CHI, LAX, WAS, or NYC. These places naturally have a LOT of people and their own commuter/light rail systems. They'll NEVER have anything like that in Ohio.

I think a better model is that of PDX. PDX is about the same size, and the station isn't exactly downtown. It's close-- but not there. There's no commuter rail that stops at the station-- and the bus stop is still a little block's walk away IIRC. Their new streetcars aren't designed in any way different than that of the bus system in Columbus-- it brings the suburbanites in... and does a few loops around downtown. (Again, nowhere near their station).

Yet PDX gets served by the CS, the EB, (hell its a terminus for one half of an EB that is due to have more cars added to it), and is a member of the Cascades corridor.

Back to the length. The DIRECT route from Cin-city to CLE is 250 miles, but if you add in stops at Dayton, Springfield, and Columbus you push it up to 300-350. Let's take the highest bar there and say 350. That means these trains in 5.5 hours average 63 plus change MPH. That's, actually, quite good given the 79 MPH restriction. To get that down to an ideal four hours-- they would need 87.5 MPH average. If they put money to make that track 110 MPH track I am sure they could do it, esp. along the major stretches... but I don't think they will. And if this train runs into delays and starts clocking in at six hours... you can forget it. It will die a slow death until somebody puts it out of its misery.

 

[AlanB]

I don't think its fair to compare any of these cities to population zones like CHI, LAX, WAS, or NYC. These places naturally have a LOT of people and their own commuter/light rail systems. They'll NEVER have anything like that in Ohio.

While I'll agree that the three C's might never have or need a system like NYC's, I fail to see why they can't have commuter & light rail systems. Little Salt Lake City, population 178,858, already has 3 light rail lines and 4 more under construction, as well as one commuter line that also has an extension under construction. Both Cleveland and Cinci have more than 100,000 more people than SLC, and Columbus has 3 times the population of SLC. Now of course Cleveland has already shown the foresight to build some rapid transit, but they could still use more. However they are light years ahead of the other two C's.

I think a better model is that of PDX. PDX is about the same size, and the station isn't exactly downtown. It's close-- but not there. There's no commuter rail that stops at the station-- and the bus stop is still a little block's walk away IIRC. Their new streetcars aren't designed in any way different than that of the bus system in Columbus-- it brings the suburbanites in... and does a few loops around downtown. (Again, nowhere near their station).

Portland's newest light rail line will put a station right next to the train station. And while there is no commuter rail that stops at the Amtrak station, Portland does now have commuter rail, with more lines under consideration. No doubt some of those lines would indeed use the Portland Amtrak station.

 

[AAARGH!]

Back to the length. The DIRECT route from Cin-city to CLE is 250 miles, but if you add in stops at Dayton, Springfield, and Columbus you push it up to 300-350. Let's take the highest bar there and say 350. That means these trains in 5.5 hours average 63 plus change MPH. That's, actually, quite good given the 79 MPH restriction. To get that down to an ideal four hours-- they would need 87.5 MPH average. If they put money to make that track 110 MPH track I am sure they could do it, esp. along the major stretches... but I don't think they will. And if this train runs into delays and starts clocking in at six hours... you can forget it. It will die a slow death until somebody puts it out of its misery.

Using this Google Map (Link), it's 268 miles (via highway) to go from Cleveland to Columbus to Springfield to Dayton to Cincy. I assume the train doesn't run on the highway :huh: (passing would be a btch), but it's a close approximation.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

You know, what they need to do is rebuild the systems that National City Lines (General Motors/Firestone) dismantled.

 

[saxman]

Here's the problem as it was when I was there, and as it is now. I have discussed this with a lot of Ohio train folks over the years. None of the 3-C cities have that good of a local transportation system. Well, maybe Cleveland does with its rapid transit trains. But Columbus and Cincinnati have next to nothing in bus systems that would help anyone after they take the train to one of the cities. The bus systems are designed to take folks back and forth to the suburbs at rush hour. Further, the stations they would use aren't connected to other transportation systems or, in Cleveland, to the main Rapid Transit station in Terminal Tower. They are talking about having the 3-C station be in a different place from the Amtrak station in Cincinnati, too. Columbus hasn't had a train station in 30 years, so who knows where they would put on in that town.

That seems to be the question for lots of cities these days. I guess it comes down to a chicken and the egg thing. Should we wait until Cincinnati Columbus have a couple light rail lines under plans? That may be awhile. Or would building the 3-C encourage quicker development of better transit systems in those cities. I guess it depends on how much money is there to support it in the beginning. I guess many first riders would be people that have someone to pick them up at the other end. Like a college student in Columbus would have to have family in Cincy to pick them up. Maybe that will get more people to encourage better transit and it would happen quicker. But again, most of Amtrak's smaller town require someone to be there to pick you up, or a taxi to get there.

 

[Railroad Bill]

As to what cities would be served by the new CCC line, there are already rumblings about how Mansfield will be bypassed. I would suppose other cities will join the screaming when a route is considered. :unsure:

Personally I would ride the train to Cincy to watch Reds games, attend events along the Ohio River, museums, etc and would gladly drive to Shelby to catch the railline.

But I might suggest that Crestline would be a better stopping point since there is currently an east-west rail line (Former PRR Ft. Wayne line) that might be considered for a new Amtrak line from Pittsburgh or Alliance to Chicago or St. Louis.

That would really attract some ridership to and from north central Ohio and perhaps offer a better time to board than the current LSL--CL--or Cardinal

Just my two cents

 

[MrFSS]

As to what cities would be served by the new CCC line, there are already rumblings about how Mansfield will be bypassed. I would suppose other cities will join the screaming when a route is considered. :unsure: Personally I would ride the train to Cincy to watch Reds games, attend events along the Ohio River, museums, etc and would gladly drive to Shelby to catch the railline.

But I might suggest that Crestline would be a better stopping point since there is currently an east-west rail line (Former PRR Ft. Wayne line) that might be considered for a new Amtrak line from Pittsburgh or Alliance to Chicago or St. Louis.

That would really attract some ridership to and from north central Ohio and perhaps offer a better time to board than the current LSL--CL--or Cardinal

Just my two cents

The best thing I have heard about a terminus for the CIN end would be a station next to the Montgomery Inn Restaurant down on the river, just east of downtown. It would be worth the price of the tickets just to have a meal at that establishment. Best ribs anywhere!

 

[Railroad Bill]

That would be fantastic. It is a great restaurant. And if the CCC brought riders from Columbus, Dayton to downtown Cincy it would do quite well. (of course it would help to have the Reds win a pennant along the way). :unsure:

I believe there might be more regional riding (NC Ohio to Cleveland--Columbus-Springfield-Dayton to Cincy) than people riding the entire route from Cleveland to Cincy. If they could make good time and have a station near attractions it would help.

Downtown Columbus doesnt offer much these days but a station out near Polaris or Easton might attract more riders there.

 

[amtrak51]

Being from Cincy and supporting this plan for years heres my drift summed up:

1-New Cincinnati Station on the riverfront(revitalized downtown area) is a great move, Cincinnati Union Terminal is to far out of downtown(in the industrial section of Cincinnati) and expensive to reequip for more the one train a night(I mean a day)

2-Cincinnati's Bus system is not the greatest but, is very usable

3-Cincy is walkable

4-Remember Dayton Ohio doesn't start with C but it is very large city too

5-Older figures show that few people will go Cincinnati to Cleveland and most will terminate in Columbus

6-Diving I-71 Sucks

7-Maybe even 2 daily trains for starters

8-6 and 1/2 hours is very padded estimate

9-New stations in Dayton and Columbus

As a fellow train rider and rail fan once put it,"If you don't want more trains in Ohio, then you must have lived in Ohio way to long."

 

[amtrak51]

As to what cities would be served by the new CCC line, there are already rumblings about how Mansfield will be bypassed. I would suppose other cities will join the screaming when a route is considered. :unsure: Personally I would ride the train to Cincy to watch Reds games, attend events along the Ohio River, museums, etc and would gladly drive to Shelby to catch the railline.

But I might suggest that Crestline would be a better stopping point since there is currently an east-west rail line (Former PRR Ft. Wayne line) that might be considered for a new Amtrak line from Pittsburgh or Alliance to Chicago or St. Louis.

That would really attract some ridership to and from north central Ohio and perhaps offer a better time to board than the current LSL--CL--or Cardinal

Just my two cents

The best thing I have heard about a terminus for the CIN end would be a station next to the Montgomery Inn Restaurant down on the river, just east of downtown. It would be worth the price of the tickets just to have a meal at that establishment. Best ribs anywhere!

LOL :lol: