Why would you put two trains on the weakest Chicago - East Coast route (ignoring the Cardinal for the moment) while keeping only one train to the strongest Chicago - East Coast route? Seems weird to me.
Pardon my ignorance, but if the LSL went through Michigan, would it be routed through Ontario between Buffalo and Detroit? The only way I could see that happening is if the train was buttoned up for the transit through Canada, and even then I am not sure that the current climate would allow it.
That would be the shortest way, but part of the route that they ran that way in the past is no longer there.
I believe they should run single levels on the Capitol Limited anyway, regardless of how it’s routed, to allow it to combine at Pittsburgh with the Pennsylvania, and allow more Superliners for the Western trains.
Routing through Ontario will happen only in the feverish dreams of rail fans. In the real world? No, that won't happen for many reasons, including the absence of operating rail tracks on part of that route used in the past, even if CBP and CBSA could come around to allow such, which they won't.
It's funny how Canada to Canada freight trains operate through the US with little more than a radio call and US to US freight trains operate through Canada without much more. It's those darn passengers that cause all the problems.
I guess if we could simply lock up and seal the people in freight cars/containers things should work out just fine with just a signature
Can I ask the rationale for being so inexplicably dogmatic about the no through Canada routing? It makes a lot of sense especially in conjunction with VIA. Both are projected higher speed lines. If the Michigan line is higher speed, the VIA lines are higher speed, and the Water Level Route from Buffalo to NYP is higher speed, you have a train that serves some huge travel markets. There is zero operational impediment to it. The routes largely have passenger service already. As an aside, there are unfortunately more than a few in the advocacy community that are always pouring cold water on people’s ideas. In my experience, their negativity is as always grounded in misconception as in reality. I for one believe that Chicago-Detroit-Toronto-Buffalo-Néw York is a winner, and will happen. Bank on it.
While I would certainly like to see what you're suggesting actually happen, I'm with @jis on this one. It's difficult to avoid bringing politics into this discussion, so to over-simplify the problem the US would have to "feel more secure" and ease border-crossing restrictions and Canada would have to stop reacting to "one-up" every measure the US puts in place. A change of government in Washington may help, but a more "American-friendly" government in Ottawa would definitely be needed to expedite things from Canada's end.
Yeah. Stephen Gardner is not necessarily the one that can get the funding issues resolved at Gare Centrale anyway. Nor can he do much about running locked door trains in Canada with both CBP and CBSE dead set against it.
Toronto would be a considerable detour on that routing, as a thru train. The rest is (and was), fine...
If only! I for one wouldn't care if the CL were limited to 100mph. What really counts is raising the speed and rail comfort at that speed on the rest of the route. The idea is not to have the fastest train on one portion particularly if there are other trains that already can do it but to have a fast train across the route so the people on the east coast see a fast train, not one that goes 10mph faster in Michigan.
Excuse me? Without a fairly extreme diversion this is not true. The line originally used for this service is partly pulled up, with much of the rest being a low-grade shortline.
This train is the exception rather than the rule. The International was routinely subject to a delay of up to an hour in both directions, as was the Montrealer. The Maple Leaf could often exceed 60 minutes southbound, with a long line outside in the bitter cold with luggage. I'm not sure the International is viable ever again (and trust me - I miss it) and the latter two both need pre-clearance in Canada with a sealed run to the border.
You are correct, but so am I. That wye is a long way from the border crossing. It is Bayview Junction, north of Hamilton, where trains from Toronto diverge in two directions - to Windsor/Sarnia and Hamilton/Niagara Falls. It is within the commuter rail perimeter of Toronto and is used daily by GO Transit. Using it would certainly work, but would add so much travel time to the trip that going via Toledo for purposes of this discussion would be way faster. Even Amtrak allows over an hour each way for the Maple Leaf to get from Niagara this side of C&I to Bayview Junction. It's mostly single track, dodging mixed freight and GO trains. The line needed to make Amtrak through Canada service work was the joint CSX route that headed almost due west from the border crossing, hugging the north shore of Lake Erie to a junction near Chatham on NSC1109's map above. Some of the tracks are in place for a shortline to serve small industries; part is long gone (although I believe the ROW is still in-place). A side-note is that the route didn't even use the same bridge as the Maple Leaf... Google Michigan Central Railway Bridge for more information.
The map is correct, but unfortunately you are missing something. The route you're suggesting adds so much time to the trip that it would be more practical for purposes of this discussion to go through Cleveland and Toledo to reach Detroit. Please review the details above, then add in that Amtrak on the current (suspended) timetable allows almost 2 hours in each direction for the Maple Leaf customs stop. It does not usually take that long (60-90 minutes is normal depending on passenger loads), but on top of your northerly reroute staying on the American side of Lake Erie makes much more sense. Now if someone had the money to rebuild the tracks and the train could run sealed without stops in Canada, we'd have something to discuss.
