There used to be a night train Toronto to Chicago. I havent been on the LS for a long time and planned a trip last year. To get from my residence 2 hours north of Toronto I would have to get to Toronto & sleepover there at an expensive motel to get the early am train Toronto-Buffralo and stick around Buffalo awaitring the evening connection for Chicago. I decided to drive to my daughter's near Harrisburg and travel by the Keystone to NYK and then the LS to Chicago.
Had a great trip... Harrisburg-NewYork-Denver-SanFrancisco-Los Angeles-New Orleans-Philadelphia-Harrisburg.
The year previous I wanted to take the Wolverine Detroit-Chicago. Same problem. VIA only goes Toronto-Windsor You have to stay over in Windsor. I was going to take the bus thru the Windsor-Detroit tunnel, then a taxi from Detroit very early in the am to catch the Wolverine My son decided to drive me to Detroit instead, staying overnight at a motel in Detroit.
That was a great trip also Detroit-Chicago-Seattle-Los Angeles-Denver-Chicago-Detroit to be picked up in Detroit. Overnight in motel in Detroit & back home inm Northern Ontario.
I rode the connection from Detroit to Toledo for the eastbound Lake Shore once. The big Buffalo station was closed. The place where we waited for the Lake Shore was cold, in the middle of winter, and the eastbound Lake Shore was late. I don't remember how long we waited, I think I finally got to sleep in my roomette around 2AM. Not a very good way to build patronage.
MidlandMike About 20 years ago I rode the train when they did just that. It did not seem the Toledo-Detroit segment was that well patronized.
About 20 years ago I rode the train when they did just that. It did not seem the Toledo-Detroit segment was that well patronized.
That was the Lake Cities. I rode it, too. Now, it is a Thruway bus. Probably good enough...and only 1:05 running time.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
NKP guy If ever there was a reason for Amtrak to own or operate an RDC car, Toledo to Detroit would be it. Amtrak used to have a connecting train to meet the LS Ltd. Maybe an RDC car would work this time. Now imagine a railfan group running such a connecting train or car.
Just checked. There currently is an Amtrak Thruway bus that does the Toledo - Detroit connection for the LSL. Bus actually runs all the way to East Lansing...
blue streak 1 a quick comment. 1.why not originate/ terminate one of the Detroit - CHI trains in Toledo. It could depart 30 Minutes after Lakeshore / and awrrive 30 minutes early in Toledo. ?? 2. This would provide a cross platform connection at Toledo and not slow LSL total NYP - CHI times. Eventually a couple thru cars might be added when more equipment is availble in 2015. ? 3. I'm in rehab so have no source to present timetables 4. Keep it simple.
a quick comment.
1.why not originate/ terminate one of the Detroit - CHI trains in Toledo. It could depart 30 Minutes after Lakeshore / and awrrive 30 minutes early in Toledo. ??
2. This would provide a cross platform connection at Toledo and not slow LSL total NYP - CHI times. Eventually a couple thru cars might be added when more equipment is availble in 2015. ?
3. I'm in rehab so have no source to present timetables
4. Keep it simple.
About 20 years ago I rode the train when they did just that. It did not seem the Toledo-Detroit segment was that well patronized. I don't remember why the experiment was terminated. but shortly there after, the CHI-DET Wolverines were extended past the Detroit end, north to suburban Pontiac (the opposite direction from Toledo). Connections from eastern Michigan to Toledo are covered by Amtrak Thruway bus service.
Perhaps there is some reticence from trying to graft a corridor route like the Wolverine on to a long distance train like the LS. I would rather see a Detroit-Cincinnati train. (The route was killed upon Amtrak start-up.)
Just do the Lake Cites again....
Two seat ride. Better to do a Toledo to Chicago stub. One RDC should do it.
You're right, Blue, there are many simple and more direct and sensible answers than rerouting through Canada.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
oltmannd MidlandMike: I don't believe the train would be rerouted via Canada for all the reasons already stated. I think Indiana and its cities served would object strongly to being bypassed. The Toledo-Detroit-Chicago route has already been tried and failed. Even if this new train would eliminate the transfer at Toledo and Michigan speeds were improved, there are so many stops on the present Detroit-Chicago stretch, some would have to be eliminated to keep reasonable time. This is what is done on the present Lakeshore thru NY where many stops are eliminated Buffalo-NY City, and you must transfer to make those stops. So they would effectively recreate the Toledo-Detroit-Chicago scenario, which as we said failed. "Many" = 3. Rome, Rhinecliff, Hudson "Cities" in Indiana = Elkhart, South Bend, Waterloo. (and the South Bend folk would just have to scoot up to Niles) . Kalamazoo, Jackson and Battle Creek easily trump those for market size. Detroit, Dearborn and Ann Arbor are the real prize, though. Other locations in Michigan can be skipped...no biggie. Current running time for the LSL is about 4:30. Current MI trains about 5:30. Drop 1:00 for 110 mph when it happens and add back in 1:00 for Toledo to Detroit. 1:00 total impact - for LD train riders, this is a non-factor. Nobody rides LD trains for their trip times.
MidlandMike: I don't believe the train would be rerouted via Canada for all the reasons already stated. I think Indiana and its cities served would object strongly to being bypassed. The Toledo-Detroit-Chicago route has already been tried and failed. Even if this new train would eliminate the transfer at Toledo and Michigan speeds were improved, there are so many stops on the present Detroit-Chicago stretch, some would have to be eliminated to keep reasonable time. This is what is done on the present Lakeshore thru NY where many stops are eliminated Buffalo-NY City, and you must transfer to make those stops. So they would effectively recreate the Toledo-Detroit-Chicago scenario, which as we said failed.
I don't believe the train would be rerouted via Canada for all the reasons already stated. I think Indiana and its cities served would object strongly to being bypassed. The Toledo-Detroit-Chicago route has already been tried and failed. Even if this new train would eliminate the transfer at Toledo and Michigan speeds were improved, there are so many stops on the present Detroit-Chicago stretch, some would have to be eliminated to keep reasonable time. This is what is done on the present Lakeshore thru NY where many stops are eliminated Buffalo-NY City, and you must transfer to make those stops. So they would effectively recreate the Toledo-Detroit-Chicago scenario, which as we said failed.
"Many" = 3. Rome, Rhinecliff, Hudson
"Cities" in Indiana = Elkhart, South Bend, Waterloo. (and the South Bend folk would just have to scoot up to Niles) . Kalamazoo, Jackson and Battle Creek easily trump those for market size. Detroit, Dearborn and Ann Arbor are the real prize, though. Other locations in Michigan can be skipped...no biggie.
Current running time for the LSL is about 4:30. Current MI trains about 5:30. Drop 1:00 for 110 mph when it happens and add back in 1:00 for Toledo to Detroit. 1:00 total impact - for LD train riders, this is a non-factor. Nobody rides LD trains for their trip times.
"Many" =5. including Amsterdam & Yonkers according to Amtrak TT 11/7/11
"Cities" in Indiana = Elkhart, South Bend, Waterloo. I stated that these cities would strongly object to be bypassed. I'm not sure if you are saying they won't object, or that they are not important enough to consider.
While running times may not be the first consideration in taking a LD train, I don't agree that it's is a "non-factor."
There was more to that move than operations...there was politics at play not to have to deal with the train on by then single tracks across Ohio. But I disagree with your point further for several reasons. First, any casual traveler will look at the dog leg to Detroit and recoil at the thought no matter how fast the trip can be made. Further, a straight line from Toledo to Chicago at 110mph would be better service. We are not talking thousands of miles of line, but what, about 200? Service is straight to Chicago from all points east and not through Detroit. If there is a need for a connection from Toldedo to Detroit for customers from the east, then let the market research prove it, othewise march on!
Running trains where people aren't because it's a straight line makes no sense unless it's 1938 and the train is the Broadway Limited. But nobody but us railfans are going end to end these days on these trains. Connecting the dots where people are is service.
Amtrak made a change like this for exactly this reason to the Capitol Limited. They took it off the B&O west of PIttsburgh and made a jog north to Cleveland so they could pick up the population centers of Cleveland and Toledo.
Running trains to run trains is one thing. But it shouldn't be the thing when it comes to Amtrak. Providing service is what Amtrak should be about. And sometimes providing service is a perception rather than reality. Reality may be that with 110 mph running you could take the LS from Toledo to Detroit with no change in time but in perception it is an uneeded dog leg on a straight arrow trip to the Windy City. Plus, under peception, if you can go 110mph west of Detroit, why can't you go 110mph west of Toledo and get to Chi an hour faster. Service and perceptions can make or break you.
MidlandMike I don't believe the train would be rerouted via Canada for all the reasons already stated. I think Indiana and its cities served would object strongly to being bypassed. The Toledo-Detroit-Chicago route has already been tried and failed. Even if this new train would eliminate the transfer at Toledo and Michigan speeds were improved, there are so many stops on the present Detroit-Chicago stretch, some would have to be eliminated to keep reasonable time. This is what is done on the present Lakeshore thru NY where many stops are eliminated Buffalo-NY City, and you must transfer to make those stops. So they would effectively recreate the Toledo-Detroit-Chicago scenario, which as we said failed.
There are some marketing possiblities, though. A Toledo-Detroit train could take a car or two off the LS or any Chi to the east train and deliver one or two back. It could stub and return at Detroit, could use a crew from Chi to Det then to Toledo or whatever. It could be tied to a Via schedule to Toronto. It could be tied to a Toledo to ??? (Cincinnati, Columbus, Cleveland, Tallahassee, I don't know). It could be a Michigan-Ohio state's train not Amtrak. It could be Detroit-Toledo-Indianapolis-St. Louis. It nees market research and market imaginaiton.
I believe that Amtrak's study of a possible reroute of the "Lake Shore Limited" is analogous to CTA's study in 1958 of a proposed operation of PCC's on the CA&E between Forest Park and Wheaton. The study is being done to mollify various critics or because of a Congressional mandate but isn't really a serious proposal.
NKP guy Now here is an appalling idea, if I ever heard of one. To seriously consider such an absurd proposal is indeed a waste of time. I'll not repeat the two very convincing arguments about the extra time and security necessary, but I'll add a question which I think will put paid to this silly idea: How many Congressmen and Senators in four states will be affected? How many Congressmen or Senators does the Province of Ontario send to the US Congress? Capice? Why on earth would any Congressman vote for an idea that not only deprives his constituents of a service they are paying for, but ships it to another country? Proposals such as this must be dreamt up by people who don't understand the realities of politics.
Now here is an appalling idea, if I ever heard of one. To seriously consider such an absurd proposal is indeed a waste of time. I'll not repeat the two very convincing arguments about the extra time and security necessary, but I'll add a question which I think will put paid to this silly idea:
How many Congressmen and Senators in four states will be affected? How many Congressmen or Senators does the Province of Ontario send to the US Congress? Capice?
Why on earth would any Congressman vote for an idea that not only deprives his constituents of a service they are paying for, but ships it to another country?
Proposals such as this must be dreamt up by people who don't understand the realities of politics.
In the 1970s, Amtrak operated the Niagara Rainbow which ran Detroit to NYC thru Ontario. What killed it was Conrail's CS route vaporizing out from under it.
The reality here doesn't even make it to the political sphere. It's straight up economics. There is no possibility of adding additional LD train service. Boardman has said so many times in many ways. So the only question in play revolves around improving the economics of the LSL. Would it make sense to add an hour to the LSL to pick up Detroit and the rest of post-industrial Michigan at the expense of rural/RV Indiana?
Certainly from a market size view it does. But the practical considerations might be too much. Can you add the time and still make connections to the afternoon western LD trains in Chicago? Can you secure a reasonable route and running time from Toledo to Detroit at a reasonable price? How soon until Kalamazoo to Detroit is rebuilt and up to 110mph?
If you can get from Toledo to Detroit in about an hour, and then the 110 mph running west from Detroit gets you that hour back, then why not do it?
Yeah, Priority, like NKP said, politics and politicians play a big role. But also a passenger survey or marketing survey would have to prove the need for the service: how many people need travel to and from Detroit from points east of Buffalo/Niagra Falls? Could service be less costly with a Toledo-Detroit train? Lots more questions to be answered to decide to think about it.
Priority: See post by NKP above.
The Lake Shore Limited splits at Albany-Rensselaer right? Well how about spliting the whole route? North route would be Chicago-Detroit-Buffalo-Albany-Boston with no stops in Ontario. Schedule it so the Ontario travel is during the night. South route would be Chicago-Toledo-Cleveland-Buffalo-Albany-New York. Work out a complementary time schedule. There is a much greater population base on the Chicago-Detroit route than the Chicago-Toledo route.
Sam1 conrailman: UP Railroad wants 700 Million from Amtrak to put the Texas Eagle to daily. That's the rumor! I haven's seen any hard data to back it up. A top drawer CEO in a highly competitive business would slice and dice the UP numbers, assuming that they are based on something more than thin air, and would make UP prove that its numbers are supported properly. Moreover, given that Amtrak is a creature of the federal government, he would pull every political lever at his disposal to force UP to supports its cost estimates. Perhaps Amtrak's management has pushed back on the UP. But I doubt it. It seems to be a go along to get along crowd. This impression was supported by an article in the latest issue of Trains, which described Amtrak as an organization at war with itself.
conrailman: UP Railroad wants 700 Million from Amtrak to put the Texas Eagle to daily.
UP Railroad wants 700 Million from Amtrak to put the Texas Eagle to daily.
That's the rumor! I haven's seen any hard data to back it up.
A top drawer CEO in a highly competitive business would slice and dice the UP numbers, assuming that they are based on something more than thin air, and would make UP prove that its numbers are supported properly. Moreover, given that Amtrak is a creature of the federal government, he would pull every political lever at his disposal to force UP to supports its cost estimates.
Perhaps Amtrak's management has pushed back on the UP. But I doubt it. It seems to be a go along to get along crowd. This impression was supported by an article in the latest issue of Trains, which described Amtrak as an organization at war with itself.
Fact. http://trn.trains.com/Railroad%20News/News%20Wire/2012/01/Boardman%20Amtrak%20wont%20push%20for%20daily%20Sunset.aspx
Big plans made in a vacuum. Corporate dysfunction ratted out by CEO.
oltmannd Dragoman: oltmannd: It won't add hours to the trip when Detroit - Porter is all 110 mph and Toledo to Porter is 79 mph, particularly if you can get Toldeo - Detroit down to an hour. Get Toledo - Detroit down to an hour? NYC's original Mercury did it in an hour or 1:05 (depending on direction) in 1936! Have track conditions so deteriorated that we can't beat that now, 75 years later?!? It's not track conditions per se, but that the routes are not oriented to mixed service. I believe Amtrak's Lake Cities (?) took >90 minutes to make the trip during the 80s. I'll try to look it up.
Dragoman: oltmannd: It won't add hours to the trip when Detroit - Porter is all 110 mph and Toledo to Porter is 79 mph, particularly if you can get Toldeo - Detroit down to an hour. Get Toledo - Detroit down to an hour? NYC's original Mercury did it in an hour or 1:05 (depending on direction) in 1936! Have track conditions so deteriorated that we can't beat that now, 75 years later?!?
oltmannd: It won't add hours to the trip when Detroit - Porter is all 110 mph and Toledo to Porter is 79 mph, particularly if you can get Toldeo - Detroit down to an hour.
It won't add hours to the trip when Detroit - Porter is all 110 mph and Toledo to Porter is 79 mph, particularly if you can get Toldeo - Detroit down to an hour.
Get Toledo - Detroit down to an hour?
NYC's original Mercury did it in an hour or 1:05 (depending on direction) in 1936! Have track conditions so deteriorated that we can't beat that now, 75 years later?!?
It's not track conditions per se, but that the routes are not oriented to mixed service. I believe Amtrak's Lake Cities (?) took >90 minutes to make the trip during the 80s. I'll try to look it up.
Looked it up. It was the "Lake Cities". 1:45 from Detroit to Toledo. 1:40 Toledo to Detroit. Ran on Conrail ex-Michigan Central line. Fall 87 public timetable.
Dragoman oltmannd: It won't add hours to the trip when Detroit - Porter is all 110 mph and Toledo to Porter is 79 mph, particularly if you can get Toldeo - Detroit down to an hour. Get Toledo - Detroit down to an hour? NYC's original Mercury did it in an hour or 1:05 (depending on direction) in 1936! Have track conditions so deteriorated that we can't beat that now, 75 years later?!?
Remembering the 1950s and even the 1960s, I can't help feeling wistful about what might be done with the Cleveland-Chicago market, if the right magic wand were waved. I know that, at 341 miles on the old Water Level Route, this is stretching the definition of a do-able corridor, especially at 79 mph. But the present middle-of-the-night schedules don't begin to do justice to the high-population potential of this route.
You shoulda been there ... even after the heyday had passed! Then, too, you also had the immensely civilized service of the NKP between the same end points. For an exotic routing -- still true in the '60s -- you could go to Galion, O., on the old Big Four and make a close connection with the E-L's westbound Lake Cities.
One of the comforts of getting old today is having been around to enjoy some of these adventures 45-50 years ago. (And I realize this is a pale shadow of what the real oldsters among us can remember!)
oltmannd It won't add hours to the trip when Detroit - Porter is all 110 mph and Toledo to Porter is 79 mph, particularly if you can get Toldeo - Detroit down to an hour.
As I said earlier, it has to make sense to cut off Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland-Toledo service for the sake of the extra milage and time and either sealing the train from Buffalo/Niagra Falls to Detroit or having four sets of gestopo poring through everybody's luggage while offering of pop quizes on your life history and that of your parents and first grade teacher, too. If there is a need for Buffalo/Niagra Falls to Detroit service, it would be a Via train because it would need Canadian stops to bolster its use. If it is a matter of giving LS customers access to Detroit, then maybe a Toledo-Detroit train may be better for Amtrak coffers. We don't have the marketing research, the riders' origination and destination numbers nor frequency numbers, operating cost (equipment, crews, track rental, assigned costs by the hosts, government charges for agents and supervision, etc.). So we wag until real numbers and deteminations are told to us.
henry6 Getting into population centers and marketing have to be compatible. RUnning the LS from Toledo to Detroit to Chicago to hit more population centers while adding hours to the trip is counter to marketing a viable service. Detroit-Chicago Service should be able to stand on its own; likewise Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago service. The question then is there sufficient evidence that Detroit-Toledo is a marketable corridor? All this has nothing to to with the Lake Shore Service NY to Chicago.
Getting into population centers and marketing have to be compatible. RUnning the LS from Toledo to Detroit to Chicago to hit more population centers while adding hours to the trip is counter to marketing a viable service. Detroit-Chicago Service should be able to stand on its own; likewise Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago service. The question then is there sufficient evidence that Detroit-Toledo is a marketable corridor? All this has nothing to to with the Lake Shore Service NY to Chicago.
How about Syracuse/Rochester/Buffalo to Detroit/Dearborn/Ann Arbor?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.