CMStPnP MidlandMike While Gov. Walker and others turned down the money, still other states gladly took the redirected money for their passenger service improvments. Almost 15 years ago, and still none of those states have an operational or functioning HSR route or near HSR route from point A to B. We are still waiting. Additionally, each state had to commit their own funds or seek additional federal funds to move to further completion. As it turns out, Gov. Walkers fears were realized in the states that accepted the money.
MidlandMike While Gov. Walker and others turned down the money, still other states gladly took the redirected money for their passenger service improvments.
Almost 15 years ago, and still none of those states have an operational or functioning HSR route or near HSR route from point A to B. We are still waiting. Additionally, each state had to commit their own funds or seek additional federal funds to move to further completion. As it turns out, Gov. Walkers fears were realized in the states that accepted the money.
Michigan (where I live) took about $100 million of that money and bought most of the rest of the Wolverine corridor route from NS. Much of the 100+ miles route has been, or is in the process of being upgraded to 110 mph. I haven't heard any complaints in Michigan. Other states have used the money to upgrade routes or add service. If Gov. Walker had got the money to do highways instead as he wanted, Wisconsin would eventually be on the hook when those highways need rebuilding. All public transport eventually has to be paid for by the public.
MidlandMikeWhile Gov. Walker and others turned down the money, still other states gladly took the redirected money for their passenger service improvments.
They would have reduced services, like everywhere else and could have started up again with a functioning line. The highway lobby was a big campaign donor, second to the Kochs.
charlie hebdo MidlandMike CMStPnP MidlandMike It seems unfair that the Feds single out corridor service under 750 miles, requiring full state coverage of subsidy, while they themselves subsidize transit, essential air service to local airports, and highways. Amtraks point was (and it is based on the above). They could interest far more states in getting involved in emerging rail corridors without the huge up front expense. So they proposed they at least cover 100% of all costs the first year and then drop from there. In my view if your experiementing with new service to see how it does and your not really sure. Very few states will commit to that type of deal, they all want a sure thing to get an idea what they are getting into long-term with the subsidy costs. It was the main reason Walker rejected the Obama HSR proposal for Wisconsin. He did not want to saddle the state with greatly increased rail subsidies nor did he want the state on the hook for project completion costs (Est at that time up to $1 Billion more than the $800 million provided). While Gov. Walker and others turned down the money, still other states gladly took the redirected money for their passenger service improvments. "Scoots" wanted to divert it to highway building but the DOT ruled against that use.
MidlandMike CMStPnP MidlandMike It seems unfair that the Feds single out corridor service under 750 miles, requiring full state coverage of subsidy, while they themselves subsidize transit, essential air service to local airports, and highways. Amtraks point was (and it is based on the above). They could interest far more states in getting involved in emerging rail corridors without the huge up front expense. So they proposed they at least cover 100% of all costs the first year and then drop from there. In my view if your experiementing with new service to see how it does and your not really sure. Very few states will commit to that type of deal, they all want a sure thing to get an idea what they are getting into long-term with the subsidy costs. It was the main reason Walker rejected the Obama HSR proposal for Wisconsin. He did not want to saddle the state with greatly increased rail subsidies nor did he want the state on the hook for project completion costs (Est at that time up to $1 Billion more than the $800 million provided). While Gov. Walker and others turned down the money, still other states gladly took the redirected money for their passenger service improvments.
CMStPnP MidlandMike It seems unfair that the Feds single out corridor service under 750 miles, requiring full state coverage of subsidy, while they themselves subsidize transit, essential air service to local airports, and highways. Amtraks point was (and it is based on the above). They could interest far more states in getting involved in emerging rail corridors without the huge up front expense. So they proposed they at least cover 100% of all costs the first year and then drop from there. In my view if your experiementing with new service to see how it does and your not really sure. Very few states will commit to that type of deal, they all want a sure thing to get an idea what they are getting into long-term with the subsidy costs. It was the main reason Walker rejected the Obama HSR proposal for Wisconsin. He did not want to saddle the state with greatly increased rail subsidies nor did he want the state on the hook for project completion costs (Est at that time up to $1 Billion more than the $800 million provided).
MidlandMike It seems unfair that the Feds single out corridor service under 750 miles, requiring full state coverage of subsidy, while they themselves subsidize transit, essential air service to local airports, and highways.
Amtraks point was (and it is based on the above). They could interest far more states in getting involved in emerging rail corridors without the huge up front expense. So they proposed they at least cover 100% of all costs the first year and then drop from there. In my view if your experiementing with new service to see how it does and your not really sure. Very few states will commit to that type of deal, they all want a sure thing to get an idea what they are getting into long-term with the subsidy costs. It was the main reason Walker rejected the Obama HSR proposal for Wisconsin. He did not want to saddle the state with greatly increased rail subsidies nor did he want the state on the hook for project completion costs (Est at that time up to $1 Billion more than the $800 million provided).
While Gov. Walker and others turned down the money, still other states gladly took the redirected money for their passenger service improvments.
"Scoots" wanted to divert it to highway building but the DOT ruled against that use.
Had Walker agreed to it, the state would be incurring all that cost today with nothing to show for it. In a word, Covid.
The service stop would have been at the Collinwood yard east of downtown Cleveland.
In the Classic period, the 20th Centurym the Pacemaker, and the New England States, did not have a passenger stop at Cleveland, There was aservice stop nearby (Connaught?). They bypassed the terminal station by using vthe Lakefront line, now the location of the Amtrak Station. Its convenience would be greatly improved if the light rail line serving the station, an extension of the Shaker Heights service through the downtown "Terminal," were fulltime, which it is not at present.
In Penn Central and Amtrak daysm I did use the "Steel Fleet" and the Lakeshore Limited to access work in both Erie PA and Cleveland, despite the very inconvenient tines. My clients put up with it and provided the local transportation, even on occasion keeping me company when waiting for a late train.
CMStPnPI suspect it originally had to do with hauling mail or head end cargo and they never reviewed the stop after losing the mail contracts.
It might be interesting to treat some of the 'middle of the night' stations as flag stops, and skip the deceleration/dwell/reacceleration penalty of stopping when there are no arriving or departing patrons. But you couldn't use the saved time to get more quickly to the next stop...
Now, it should be said that Greyhound has run that particular scam for years: they tell you to be at the stop at least half an hour early, and that's because if the driver has a lead foot and gets there early, he'll just leave out and to hell with those who think the schedule applies in realtime. I don't see Amtrak pulling that one off; they couldn't even manage the scooter scam properly.
daveklepperdaveklepper wrote the following post 6 hours ago: If speed is sufficient for 16 hours each way, then the overnight for NY - Chicago business should duplicate the 20th Centurys 1949 - 1956 schedule, the most useful. It also is good for Albany - South Bend and Elkhart, and NY - Albany and Souh Bend - Chicago short-turns. One day through train would handle local businees, possibly a 17-hour schedule, 8AM NYCity departure, and Midnight arrival in Chicago. Eastbouond 7AM departure and 1AM NYCity arrival. (Yes, there are people who would use a 10:40PM departure from Albany. A late departure from NYCity, 11pm, would be an overnight to Cleveland, then a day train to Chicago, arriving 3pm. A Noon departure from Chicago would be a day train to Cleveland, then an overnight train to New York with an 8AM arrival. These three trains should be adequate to serve the market. All commnities served would have at least one train each way at a convenient time, most would ave at least two, and many would have three.
So on the scheduling the one item I do not and will not ever really understand. Is the communities they stop at between midnight and 5 am.........why stop there, why not skip them? or skip some of them? Does or did the ridership really merit stops at those hours or did the railroad want to advertise it served those points?
I suspect it originally had to do with hauling mail or head end cargo and they never reviewed the stop after losing the mail contracts.
If speed is sufficient for 16 hours each way, then the overnight for NY - Chicago business should duplicate the 20th Centurys 1949 - 1956 schedule, the most useful. It also is good for Albany - South Bend and Elkhart, and NY - Albany and Souh Bend - Chicago short-turns.
One day through train would handle local businees, possibly a 17-hour schedule, 8AM NYCity departure, and Midnight arrival in Chicago. Eastbouond 7AM departure and 1AM NYCity arrival. (Yes, there are people who would use a 10:40PM departure from Albany.
A late departure from NYCity, 11pm, would be an overnight to Cleveland, then a day train to Chicago, arriving 3pm. A Noon departure from Chicago would be a day train to Cleveland, then an overnight train to New York with an 8AM arrival.
These three trains should be adequate to serve the market. All commnities served would have at least one train each way at a convenient time, most would ave at least two, and many would have three.
MidlandMikeIt seems unfair that the Feds single out corridor service under 750 miles, requiring full state coverage of subsidy, while they themselves subsidize transit, essential air service to local airports, and highways.
CMStPnP MidlandMike I am scratching my head that Ohio and Erie bought into this. Not really a surprise given that within the infrastructure bill Amtrak asked for very relaxed costing formulas for new state service. I believe if approved Amtrak can cover 100% of the cost for first 2-3 years before asking the state for money to cover new service. Amtrak wanted the Uncle Sugar approach because it knows once a rail service is up and running, cancelling it cold is not politically easy. It also found a difficult sell when it had to charge all the real startup costs up front.
MidlandMike I am scratching my head that Ohio and Erie bought into this.
Not really a surprise given that within the infrastructure bill Amtrak asked for very relaxed costing formulas for new state service. I believe if approved Amtrak can cover 100% of the cost for first 2-3 years before asking the state for money to cover new service. Amtrak wanted the Uncle Sugar approach because it knows once a rail service is up and running, cancelling it cold is not politically easy. It also found a difficult sell when it had to charge all the real startup costs up front.
My suprise was because of the poor times for their local service. Corridor service out of Cleveland would also be more feasible now that the Feds are going to cover corridor losses for a trial time. Those advocacy groups would probably like to see a corridor started knowing there would be political pressure to continue them after the trial period.
It seems unfair that the Feds single out corridor service under 750 miles, requiring full state coverage of subsidy, while they themselves subsidize transit, essential air service to local airports, and highways.
MidlandMikeI am scratching my head that Ohio and Erie bought into this.
I think the timetable was just a sample. Actual details would come later. As to speed, the timing is similar to that of the 20th Century ~70 years ago, hardly impossible.
I am scratching my head that Ohio and Erie bought into this. All the trains are thru long distance trains that still don't serve the mid points well. Cleveland only has one train in each direction that stops at convenient times, but the terminals are not that convenient. I would think Cleveland would be looking at corridor trains that would start there at reasonable AM times in both directions, and then arrive at NY and CHI at reasonable PM times.
OvermodAs noted in the other thread, much of the route that is historically 'high speed' will be difficult to convert to 110mph peak speed, and very expensive to get to 125mph. Any HSR faster than that would involve full grade-separated limited-curvature "LGV" -- probably as largely on viaduct as Chinese HSR construction was optimized to use -- and I don't see even remotely recovering that level of investment.
NY to Albany is already 110 mph. Toledo to Chicago which I have ridden several times in the past is very smooth at 80 mph and very straight. Toledo to Albany I am not sure about and have never ridden but overnight trains I am not sure the whole route has to be 110 mph especially the part your sleeping on. It just needs to be smooth. Hence the timing of most of the schedules seem to take advantage of that.
The interesting follow-on is the idea that a larger and more convenient range of trip times is the 'first step' toward achieving HSR in this corridor, something I wouldn't have prioritized.
As noted in the other thread, much of the route that is historically 'high speed' will be difficult to convert to 110mph peak speed, and very expensive to get to 125mph. Any HSR faster than that would involve full grade-separated limited-curvature "LGV" -- probably as largely on viaduct as Chinese HSR construction was optimized to use -- and I don't see even remotely recovering that level of investment.
So the priorities I'd discuss are, first, where are the best places to build to 110mph and what schedule refinements and better city-pair service progressively results, and second, the comparable analysis for acceleration to 125mph capability.
I do not know how well the Siemens PRIIA ride quality will allow 'sleepers' (especially cheaper 'commodity' types for accommodation rather than the 'Pullman type experience') at achievable track maintenance levels on the Water Level Route and associated trackage. My guess would be that the thing is doable technologically but perhaps not cost-effectively long-term.
I think it is smart to experiment with more convienent departure and arrival times with the overnight runs as long as they have plenty of sleeper space.
The 'new' trains appear to have highly unpleasant times -- one leaving at 7:00am and terminating at 11:54pm -- but the purpose is not end-to-end transportation as in the Great Steel Fleet era but convenient daylight access to and between intermediate points. I have long thought that the sleeper opportunity provided by late departure but 'non-business-morning' arrival might be useful for modern services, including 'hostel'-style or capsule-hotel sleeping arrangements.
See the recent thread that contained mention of 50 million potential regional riders for the Lake Shore Limited, which is this very route.
https://www.trains.com/trn/news-reviews/news-wire/seven-passenger-groups-form-coalition-to-push-for-chicago-new-york-rail-improvements/
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.