If you were setting up a route between Saint Louis and the East Coast, would you go via Indianapolis and Cleveland, or Louisville-Cincinatti-Pittsburgh?
The original Amtrak route was by way of Indianapolis, Columbus and Pittsburgh. The only reasonable route today might be St. Louis-Indianapolis-Cleveland-Buffalo-New York.
Brian Schmidt, Editor, Classic Trains magazine
Kevin C. SmithIf you were setting up a route between Saint Louis and the East Coast, would you go via Indianapolis and Cleveland, or Louisville-Cincinnati-Pittsburgh?
It's in part a question about rebuilding effective track capacity either way, isn't it? I'd be willing to bet that a routing "via" Cincinnati would be subject to exactly the same sort of discussion we had for St. Louis service on the City of New Orleans: perhaps better handled by a discrete fleet of luxury buses than by routing the whole train over a circuitous route or one with limited track capacity or freight conflicts. Precisely how far this 'feeder' service might be used for the best end-to-end timekeeping routing is an interesting additional question for the thread...
[quote user="CSSHEGEWISCH"]
[/quote above]
Or St. L. - Ind.- Clevland - Pittsburgh - Phila. - NY.
Just to introduce another consideration: Are there any 'abandoned' or reduced routes that have the land availability and general curve and grade profile to be converted to HSR or even HrSR status even if only for key 'links' that establish coverage to some of the places described previously?
How much of the Panhandle, for example, is actually built over irrecoverably?...
And what routes or routings become preferential when 'linked' with either a minimum of new lines or by new 'corridors' that can also support through service?
It was too easy years ago when parents and I rode the Pennsy from St. L to NYC, boarded one train and didn't have to get off. Went around Horseshoe Curve too, an added bonus. But that doesn't happen today, would have to go to Chicago and get one of the east coast trains from there. A friend did it a couple of years ago-from Chicago went on the Water Level Route to NYC. Parents and I went on to Niagara Falls on NYC RR and home from there through Cleveland, again it was direct route.
Sometimes traveling on Dad's pass, it wasn't that easy, crazy changes in the middle of the night etc. But this trip was smooth and direct as was B&O to Wash DC, no changes either.
What about via Evansville, Louisville, Cincinanatti, and then follow the current Cardianal route? Not opposed to routing via Pittsburgh, but it does get dicey trying to put together a complete pathway. It also depends on whether you are trying to reach NYC or Washington DC as the eastern terminus.
A true trans-con run could be created from DC to either/both LAX and SFrancisco using the Cardinal route to Cincinatti, then Louisville, Evansville, St. Louis, Springfield, Tulsa, Amarillo, Albuquerque/Belen, Barstow, and then up to the Bay area or on down to LA.
Another trans-con route shares part of the above. Washington DC, Bristol, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Huntsville, Memphis, Springfield, Tulsa, Amarillo, etc. The Memphis to DC portion makes sense even without the western section, but it could also be extended via Springfield to Kansas City or even Omaha to link several western trains to the DC/NEC region but bypassing Chicago.
Maybe a good question is why is not more freight routes either of those ways, bypassing Chicago?
St. Louis has historically been a gateway to Texas and the Southwest, not for transcon service.
Is this because St. Louis has its own congestion issues or because of rate division problems or what?
CSSHEGEWISCH The original Amtrak route was by way of Indianapolis, Columbus and Pittsburgh. The only reasonable route today might be St. Louis-Indianapolis-Cleveland-Buffalo-New York.
daveklepper Is this because St. Louis has its own congestion issues or because of rate division problems or what?
In a Fred Frailey blog, I asked why St. Louis was not used as a freight alternative to Chicago. Fred said that STL is where trains go to die, and seemed irritated that I asked the question.
MidlandMike daveklepper Is this because St. Louis has its own congestion issues or because of rate division problems or what? In a Fred Frailey blog, I asked why St. Louis was not used as a freight alternative to Chicago. Fred said that STL is where trains go to die, and seemed irritated that I asked the question.
Fred can get on his high horse once in a while and be a royal PIA. Likewise some of his respondents. I still read his blog but no longer the comments, including his own.
The problem at St.Louis is the lack of bridges and the Terminal Railroad Association(TRRA). You have the Merchants bridge a bit north of the city, works good for NS(ex-Wabash) East St.Louis to Kansas City traffic, and Amtrak coming south from Chicago. It does not work for CSX on the east, or either BNSF or UP on the west. Further south you have the MacArthur Bridge. The problem comes from the need to funnel the taffic from BNSF, UP, CSX and some NS, and TRRA switching and transfer runs across one double-track bridge. Both bridges are owned by TRRA.
The next bridge south is the bridge at Thebes, MO. It is on the primary Illinois - Texas traffic route for the UP
Hard to understand why somebody hasn't gotten after this in 150 years.
The Eads bridge also used to carry freight rail, but was converted to light rail transit.
With the Avard Connection upgraded on BNSF and it being a double-stacked-cleared intermodal Transcon route through Springfield, Memphis and Birmingham to Atlanta, it would not be that much of a stretch for double stacks to head from Springfield to St. Louis and then on the former NYC through Indy to North Baltimore.
The Avard Connection and the former Frisco and its connection to the former NYC at St. Louis is one reason why if there ever is a merger between East and West, perhaps CSX ends up being a better fit with BNSF than Norfolk Southern.
The issue is not so much of getting to St. Louis as it is of getting through St. Louis. Note that most of the traffic to and from Texas and the Chemical Coast skirts the St. Louis area and doesn't cross the river until Thebes.
1. This was about an Amtrak route.
2. Why should Amtrak concern itself with a revived route (StL-NYP or DC) serving a lot fewer passengers (even in the Golden Era) when the CHI-NYP route is so poorly served?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm1. This was about an Amtrak route. 2. Why should Amtrak concern itself with a revived route (StL-NYP or DC) serving a lot fewer passengers (even in the Golden Era) when the CHI-NYP route is so poorly served?
Kevin C. Smith schlimm 1. This was about an Amtrak route. 2. Why should Amtrak concern itself with a revived route (StL-NYP or DC) serving a lot fewer passengers (even in the Golden Era) when the CHI-NYP route is so poorly served? Thank you for trying to bring things back on point. I was just curious what people's thoughts would be for traffic prospects depending on the route.
schlimm 1. This was about an Amtrak route. 2. Why should Amtrak concern itself with a revived route (StL-NYP or DC) serving a lot fewer passengers (even in the Golden Era) when the CHI-NYP route is so poorly served?
Thank you for trying to bring things back on point. I was just curious what people's thoughts would be for traffic prospects depending on the route.
I for one would ride it (from Memphis) and I suspect there would be some traffic bases even in northern Illinois ... provided the new service didn't just re-create service to existing city pairs or ultimate large-city destinations in equal time or with equivalent level of service.
This might be a very good place to conduct additional testing of some of the things like business-class amenities or different dining-car/food paradigms in a 'protected environment'...
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.