Robert, I was looking at your statement that the train would arrive in Cleveland "fiveish." Since the train currently leaves the Depew station at 3:01, and the current time to Cleveland is 3:28, the arrival time in Cleveland would be more like 6:30. Eastbound, the current time is 2:56. Perhaps the westbound time could be reduced. Amtrak shows 187 miles Depew to Cleveland.
Cleveland to Detroit is shown to be 107 miles; westbound time is 2:10 and eastbound is 2:15.
Johnny
OK johnny, perhaps some dwell time in Cleveland as well, still not s bad schedule. Not the old empire state express for sure.
Deggesty ... Cleveland to Detroit is shown to be 107 miles; westbound time is 2:10 and eastbound is 2:15.
...
Cleveland-Toledo is 107 miles. Add about 50 miles more to Detroit.
gardendance And please don't call changing a New York-Toronto train to a New York-Cleveland train an extension, it's a reroute that eliminates a very big population destination for a much smaller one.
And please don't call changing a New York-Toronto train to a New York-Cleveland train an extension, it's a reroute that eliminates a very big population destination for a much smaller one.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
The "Maple Leaf" is a joint Amtrak-VIA operation, although Amtrak provides all of the equipment.
I am suggesting a simple extension of an existing train over an existing route to better serve the north coast.
I am not suggesting we rewrite the Amtrak map or discontinuing any existing services as some have suggested. The north coast continues to reinvent itself. Such events as the Republican national convention and other events coming to Cleveland, its time to look At restoring better service to the area.
Cleveland is finally looking at replacing its current am shack with a new inter modal facility. New hotels and energy coming downtown.
With that said I am not suggesting we discontinue service to toronto. Merely suggesting a Cleveland section added to the maple leaf. These kinds of trains were very common at one point. Buffola central station was an important hub, with cars being switched from train to train for their final destination. Operations like this were designed to lower costs and provide better service. Do really need to reinvent the wheel?
I can't support re routing the lsl to save a few hours if any .
ROBERT WILLISON I am suggesting a simple extension of an existing train over an existing route to better serve the north coast. ... With that said I am not suggesting we discontinue service to toronto. Merely suggesting a Cleveland section added to the maple leaf... Operations like this were designed to lower costs and provide better service.
With that said I am not suggesting we discontinue service to toronto. Merely suggesting a Cleveland section added to the maple leaf... Operations like this were designed to lower costs and provide better service.
Please acknowledge, as you mentioned in your later paragraph about adding a Cleveland section, that it's not a simple extension of an existing train. That was my quibble in my first post about your proposal when you first mentioned extending. There's a big difference between extending a Buffalo train to Cleveland and adding a Cleveland section to a Toronto train.
Also adding a section to a train does not lower costs. The resulting 2 section train may have lower costs than 2 separate trains, but it does not have lower costs than the existing 1 section train. And one of the costs is the extra time involved in separating and joining the 2 sections.
The reality is the maple leaf is an extension of the empire service. As is the Boston section of the lsl is a extension or a section of the lsl. The train runs combined to Albany and the sections are separated in Albany for their final destinations.
While I reacted negativly to the thought of changing the Maple Leaf to a Cleveland service, I have since reconsidered. In a related thread about a Detroit-Buffalo service, it was mentioned that the Maple Leaf took about 2 hours to get thru customs, and that some people would get off in Buffalo, take a taxi across the border quicker, and have a leasurly lunch, while the passengers staying on the train sat at the border. It might be quicker to shuttle the passengers in multiple vans for quicker border crossing, and take VIA to Toronto. Airline passengers essentially have to do the same thing when they transfer from a domestic flight to an internatonal flight. The train would then be free to continue on to Cleveland. Of course this will not happen in the near future, since Ohio won't support corridor service.
Some tend to think of Amtrak long-distrance trains as its passengers getting on at one end point and getting off at the other.
In reality, these trains depend on a great amount of intermediate point business, e.g., Denver to Salt Lake City, etc. In fact, it's the lack of sufficiently large intermediate point populations that hurts the financial performance of such trains as the SWC (in this case from Kansas City until you reach Riverside and San Bernardino).
In the case of the LSL, a Canadian reroute would take away the combined potential passenger populations of metro Cleveland and Toledo of 2.7 million. That would not be good for the viability of this train.
ghCBNS The route that train would have to use today is neither the same route the fast New York Central limiteds ran on 50 years ago nor the same route Amtrak used across southern Ontario in the 1970s between Detroit and Buffalo. That track is now mostly abandoned. A train today would probably follow VIA’s (CN) route from Windsor (CP to Chathamfrom the tunnel).....onto Bayview (Hamilton) then CN to Niagara Falls (the Maple Leaf’s route) IMHO.....it won’t happen. This is the reverse of what VIA’s Atlantic did crossing Maine. It was sealed while in the US which took years to negotiate....and all pre 9-11. Admittedly the whole idea sounds like fantasy, but there is no need to go by way of Niagara Falls. It could go from Bayview Junction to Fort Erie on the CPR (Toronto, Hamilton and Buffalo) and cross the river directly into Buffalo. Either way I doubt it would be any faster than the present route.
For Chicago - Buffalo and east it would probably be somewhat slower, but right now Kalamazoo, Jackson, Ann Arbor, as well as Detroit, do not have rail service directly to the east. These are the cities that would benefit.
Thank you, Don Nadeau for stating a truth that needs to be heard. For only a 5th post I'd vote yours a home run! Welcome aboard.
It seems to me that if Detroit needs train service to NYC and Boston (and without the hassle of Customs & Immigration), all Amtrak has to due is re-institute the Detroit-Toledo connection to the Lake Shore Limited and the Capitol Limited. Of course, that's been tried before and has failed, but to me it makes a heck of a lot more sense than an Amtrak train across southern Ontario with border crossings/hassles one one or both ends.
Also, a train north from Toledo to Detroit could go much farther north into Michigan, or maybe further south into deepest, darkest Ohio.
Not very likely, though.
To avoid congestion between South Bend In and Chicago reroute over CN Old GTW to dyer In and use the same trackage as the Hoosier State into chicago.
ROBERT WILLISON Johnny, its the scheduled time for the lsl. Toledo would be good end point, with connecting buses to Detroit.
Johnny, its the scheduled time for the lsl. Toledo would be good end point, with connecting buses to Detroit.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.