Amtrak is studying some service improvements for the Lake Shore Limited including a better schedule and rerouting the trainto.
The rerouting betweenandto the East coast would seem like an excellent idea. It would eliminate the serious freight congestion problems between Chicago and Cleveland. Also, the Capital Limited serves the same market at about the same time duplicating services.
However, Amtrak concludes that the rerouting would increase the operating costs due to the increased longer distance traveled.
I have to ask, what if the train ran through? Would not the distance be shorter and therefore the expenses less?
Would not the trip be faster on Amtrak’s own high-speed rails betweenandand the shorter route via? Would a whole new market open up betweenand the East Coast?
I know there is the border crossing situation, but what if the train doesn’t stop in? How would that work? Or even if it did stop in, I&rs
First, I think NY and the east coast demands a better service to and from Chicago than what it already has…at least one train on the old PRR routing would be the best that could be hoped for but two on each route would be “service” rather than running trains with trains on opposite schedules on each route. In other words, a 6A departure from NY on the Water Level route but 6P departure over the PRR route. Second, unless the train is sealed at Buffalo or Niagra Falls and at Detroit, there would be four international searches of the train…two going into Canada and two leaving Canada, so this would be both expensive and bothersome and take more time than anybody should put up with. VIA could provide a connecting Buffalo or Niagra Falls to Detroit train for any Amtrak services if it were deemed profitable enough. If there had to be stops in Canada, what would they be and why? The problem is that no one from the East at the moment wants to go to Detroit and I think it’s Delta who uses it as a minor hub anyway. Third, taking the train off the Water Level Route west of Buffalo would also eliminate Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland service which might be a deal breaker. It will, I am sure, be well studied before a decision is made.
In the past when I have traveled across the border by train it took about an hour extra. On this route it would happen twice, crossing out of, and then back into the US. Also everyone would have to have either passport/birth certificate/enhanced drivers license.
Back in 1969, I rode what was left of the Wolverine from New York City to Chicago, and I was not waked up after we left Buffalo, or was I subjected to any inspection on arrival in Detroit (I was traveling Slumbercoach) I did step off in Windsor for long enough to be told to get back on since I was in a foreign country… There may well be a changed situation now, with more rigid inspection at each port.
Trains Mar 07 had a map of the former NYC and showed that most of their line across southern Ontario has been abandoned. Are there other lines still existing that have convenient connections?
Via still operates Toronto to Detroit, the NYC line is gone, but it can be done if needed.
And 1969 is light years in the past when Canada was a virtual extension of US and Ontario was a virtual state. Today, passport, etc. is needed and you are likely to be questioned and searched by both the Mounties and the Feds.
Amtrak was instructed by Congress, I believe, to study its operations, including long distance train operations, and develop plans to improve them. Stakeholder focus groups were formed to address the problems, with the emphasis being on the worst performing trains first.
The Texas Eagle/Sunset Limited group developed an excellent plan to improve the performance of the Eagle and Sunset Limited. In a nutshell, the group recommended junking the Sunset Limited east of San Antonio, replacing it with a daily train between New Orleans and San Antonio, and running the Eagle on a daily basis between Chicago and LAX, with better call times at several markets that are now served in the middle of the night.
What came of it? Nothing! Amtrak’s go along to get along management appears to have dropped the idea. And as long as the current management crowd is in charge, very little in the way of improvements is likely to happen. But why should they. As long as intercity passenger trains are controlled by a government monopoly, where is the competitive pressure to do things better, faster, cheaper, with the operative word being better?
So don’t hold your breath whilst looking for improvements for the Lake Shore Limited!
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.
You could “seal” the train and not make stops between Niagara Falls NY and Detroit.
I can see the logic of rerouting the LSL from Toledo up to Detroit and then on to Chicago. You’d hit more population that way and once the old Michigan Central is upgraded to higher speed, the overall running time won’t be hurt.
There are multiple lines from Toledo to Detroit and they are all pretty slow at present. A bunch of dollars would have to be spent fixing one of them up for decent passenger running times and improved capacity.
In the 80’s one of the Chicago - Detroit trains made the turn at Detroit and went to Toledo, making a good connection with the LSL. I used it once to get to Ann Arbor from Philadelphia.
Long distance trains are not, and can’t be about end to end running times. Airplanes just crush them in this regard, and have for 50 years. They are more about the non-endpoint cities they serve, particularly in the east. Giving up Cleveland to save a few minutes would be a bad idea.
The key question in my mind is where did Newswire get its information? Unless someone at Amtrak or UP who was in on the negotiations or had worked up the numbers leaked the information to Newswire, I suspect that the author was reporting incomplete information.
My main point, however, is not the $700 or whatever it is million. My point is that Amtrak’s management may have caved prematurely rather than push the issue.
The UP hoists the Eagle daily. It had been on a three day a week schedule similar to the Sunset for years. When Amtrak upgraded the Eagle to daily, did it have to pay UP an upgrade investment? Or did it go along because Senator Hutchison made it clear that she wanted it to run daily and amongst other things stop at Mineola, Texas? Equally problematic, if the UP can hoist the Sunset on its current schedule, what upgrades would it need to make to handle the train on a daily basis?
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?
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.
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!)
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.