Chicago to Pittsburgh passenger service proposal. Preliminary stage.
It seems like Columbus is kind of out of the way to get to Pittsburgh.
Not if you go by way of the old B&O route⌠and the high-speed PRR route across Indiana to get to Pittsburgh would be very expensive to restore as a passenger route (although you could reasonably âbranchâ it just as PRR did for high-speed access to St.Louis tooâŚ)
Note when they say âMidwest Connectâ they may be talking how much connection they do, not how fast or competitive it would start out beingâŚ)
What needs to be connected between Chicago and Pittsburgh are all the other cities of the mid-West. Indianapolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Akron and St. Louis.
A single line wonât do it.
2 Likes
A single line, or an approach to a City of Everywhere train, likely wonât.
The model is going to be what the states agree to pony up to get rail connectivity to their cities. And Iâd argue that the âcorrectâ solution isnât going to involve one-seat service with sections from off-main cities being switched in and out of a consist⌠FLIRT-style distributed power packs substituting for extra locomotives notwithstanding.
That leaves us, again, with the luxury Thruway bus service as the Midwest feeders in my opinion. It might be interesting to see how far we could get toward the Pickwick Nite Coach level of onboard serviceâŚ
1 Like
Itâs just a beginning. Maybe it will develop into a network, maybe not. Chicago to Pittsburgh could offer a connection at Columbus to Dayton and Cincy and onward to DC and NYC at Pitt. Other lines might follow.
The logical connection with a âMidwesternâ train would be with the Cardinal at Cincinnati for all the ânortheasternâ connections (ultimately via the NEC). That would keep the âColumbusâ train able to terminate at Pittsburgh even with no organized through-Pennsylvanian to Harrisburg⌠at least at first.
1 Like
- Cardinal already runs to Chicago 3x per week.
- A ~28 hour schedule is pretty slow.
End to End is not the forte of at MW Connector. I will have to be a nominal Hub and Spoke type of undertaking simply because of the geography of the population centers.
That would be for the best. Trains can only compete in the <300 mile segment.
The problem with Columbus is that the majority of its population growth has been relatively recent. Cleveland and Cincinnati have better rail connections since they were always considered to be the âbigâ cities in Ohio. In 1950, Clevelandâs population was 914K, while Columbus only had 375K. In 2023, Columbus has 913K and Cleveland 364K. Theyâve almost exactly swapped populations.
Itâs clearly why connecting Columbus makes sense. Amtrak should go where the people are.
Too bad thereâs no Chicago Columbus Panhandle line anymore to allow a direct fast route.
Expecting meaningful support from the Ohio General Assembly for this project is like expecting Lucy to finally let Charlie Brown kick that football
2 Likes
What my geographical understand of the Midwest would indicate -
Pittsburgh, Chicago and St. Louis as end terminals. Indianapolis & Columbus as hub terminals and spokes, in some manner, going to Cincinnati, Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Dayton, Fort Wayne, Evansville, Springfield .
1 Like
No love for Detroit or Grand Rapids?
Out of sight, out of mind. Doesât Grand Rapids already have service to Chicago?
âŚwhen they are awake.
I kinda like the route. Pittsburgh starts looking like a hub.
Devil is always in the details, though.
1 Like
They do, funded by the state of Michigan. The fact the state doesnât fund a train to its largest city from GR says a lot.
1 Like
New Detroit rail hub plan
One would expect Michigan to have an entire network in the state radiating out from Detroit.