 
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2750
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:55 pm: |    |
For a while they offered train service to Florida where they'd let you take along your automobile. I thought that was sorta funny. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4660
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:57 pm: | |
^^^Actually, they still do. The Auto Train, which runs from Lorton, VA (DC suburbs) to Sanford, FL, is immensely popular. It runs once a day in each direction, and usually sells out. The snowbirds and family vacationers love it, from what I hear. I've heard of people from Cleveland driving 6 hours to the Auto Train, just so they didn't have to drive the entire way to Florida. |
Firstandten
Member
Username: Firstandten
Post Number: 243
Registered: 05-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:59 pm: | |
I believe they still offer that service. The train leaves from northern Virginia and it goes to the Orlando area. Great service for the snowbirds who want to drive their cars. |
Scs100
Member
Username: Scs100
Post Number: 1584
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 2:59 pm: | |
quote:quote:Alot of the east coast trains have bike racks which allows you to bring it on for free instead of having to box it up your bike and then pay a freight handling fee.
I don't recall ever being on a train that allowed you to bring your bike (without boxing it up). Those trains are usually pretty damn near sold out--I don't see where they have the space.
The Cascades train out in Seattle allows bikes on board, but I don't know of any other one. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1447
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 5:04 pm: | |
Amtrak has owned the track between Kalamazoo and Porter since April 1, 1976--Conrail's start-up date. Conrail didn't want that portion of the Penn Central. In Amtrak's early years the trains made at most 60 MPH on a lot of the Chi-Det line. Much progress has been made since then, but there's a lot more that needs to be done.
If it wasn't for M-DOT's contributions, there would be no train from Chicago to Port Huron, or Chicago to Grand Rapids, or the increased speeds west of Kalamazoo. |
Drankin21
Member
Username: Drankin21
Post Number: 270
Registered: 12-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 6:01 pm: | |
I wish Amtrak was an option but it simply is not. Even with 4 dollar gas, the potential for a 4 to 6 hour late arrival either way is unacceptable to most I would have to imagine. |
Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm
Post Number: 1110
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, July 23, 2008 - 6:15 pm: | |
The Federal Railroad Administration sets speed limits on track depending on maintenance and equipment standards (jointed rail vs. welded, rail weight, type of ties, etc)
Class 1 Freight: 10 mph Passenger: 15 mph
Class 2 Freight: 25 mph Passenger: 30 mph
Class 3 Freight: 40 mph Passenger: 60 mph
Now we get into the higher speed part:
Class 4 Freight: 60 mph Passenger: 80 mph
This is where your 79 mph track is. It's fairly common on major rail lines
Class 5 Freight: 80 mph Passenger: 90 mph
I believe the only Class 5 trackage in the US is on parts of the ex Santa Fe BNSF trackage between Chicago and L.A.
Class 6 All trains limited to 110 mph
Class 7 All trains limited to 125 mph
This is most of the North East Corridor
Class 8 All trains limited to 160 mph
Parts of the NE Corridor where Acela runs
Class 9 Limit is 200 mph
There is no Class 9 trackage in North America
Part of the problem is one of cost. It doesn't take THAT much work to step up from lower classes to medium ones. Where the big money is spent is going from, say Class 4 to 5, and each step above.... |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 613
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 2:59 am: | |
The other big problem with getting high-speed rail going anywhere is that you have to deal with grade crossings and urban areas. When trains are running at 150 MPH, you can't have kids playing on the tracks, cars and trucks trying to beat the train, etc. At minimum, that means closing grade crossings or replacing them with under or overpasses. That's not such a big problem in rural areas (although sometimes a major headache for farmers trying to move heavy equipment) but start adding up the cost of doing that on more heavily used roads and it gets very expensive very quickly.
Getting the trains up to speed and keeping them at that speed also means turning the railroad right-of-way into a more secured corridor to avoid conflicts with vehicles, pedestrians, etc. Again, out in the farm fields, that's not a problem. But the Amtrak line runs through dozens of cities and small towns between Detroit and Chicago. The train doesn't stop at places like Grass Lake or Chelsea where the tracks run right through the town. But unless you're willing to secure the right-of-way as it runs through these towns with fences, etc., the trains are going to have to slow down significantly as they pass through. All that slowing down and speeding up as you pass through these various little villages impact the bottom line when it comes to top speed and overall performance. |
Flyingj
Member
Username: Flyingj
Post Number: 266
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, July 24, 2008 - 4:49 am: | |
Jcole, Nebraska? Ha, that's Uncle Pete i.e.; Union Pacific home turf. They wish Amtrak died a long time ago Jazzfan-normally I kill open the words "turnpike" but I am all about the Skyway. Every dime it costs is sssoooo worth it! |
Hardhat
Member
Username: Hardhat
Post Number: 249
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 12:58 pm: | |
In the pre-Amtrak era, was there passenger rail service between Detroit and Michigan cities not along the Chicago route like Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Saginaw and Traverse City? If so, what happened to those lines, and when did that service stop? |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1484
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 1:07 pm: | |
There was interurban service between Detroit and Port Huron, Detroit and Toledo, I believe Detroit and Lansing, and many other places. All interurban service ended by the 1930s. In the early 1980s Amtrak was providing rail service between Detroit and Toledo and Detroit and Pontiac (the latter included a commuter line in addition to the current Pontiac-Detroit-Chicago trips).
I don't know about the heavy-rail passenger service in Michigan but I bet some other DYers can clear it up for you.
For more info get a copy of "When Eastern Michigan Rode the Rails" by Schramm et al.
(Message edited by professorscott on July 28, 2008) |
Jcole
Member
Username: Jcole
Post Number: 2672
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 1:07 pm: | |
There is still a line that runs from Port Huron, through Lapeer and Flint, down to Battle Creek and on to Chicago. It's called the Blue Water Route.
There is also the Pere Marquette line from Grand Rapids, Holland, St. Joseph and Chicago
They only run once a day in each direction. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1485
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 1:42 pm: | |
By the way, Bob mentioned a few days ago that Amtrak's essential problem is money and that the current administration does not favor Amtrak. Let me put it more generally: the current administration has no transportation policy of any kind, so the staff policy (which is always "keep doing what we did last year") prevails.
If we want to redo, in any way, our national transportation system in order to give ourselves more energy-efficient (and as a side bonus less dangerous) ways to get around besides having to drive absolutely everywhere, we need to ask our elected folks at the national level what policies they favor, and choose those who have at least thought it through.
The last presidential administration that had anything I'd call a "transportation policy" was that of Dwight D. Eisenhower. |
Douglasm
Member
Username: Douglasm
Post Number: 1113
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 1:54 pm: | |
Hardhat....
....The GTW used to run between Detroit and Durand, to offer a connection to their Chicago/Toronto service. This was a backhand way of serving Flint, Lansing and Battle Creek.
The New York Central serviced Bay City and Mackinac City through 1963 from Detroit.
In 1966, service between Grand Rapids and Traverse City was suspended by the C&O.
And as a historical point, on April 30th, 1971 the Wabash Cannonball departs Fort Street Station for the last time, and the last train out of Brush Street was GTW's Mohawk for Chicago.
On May 1st of that year, Amtrak started operation, Fort Street Station was closed, and all rail passenger operations, or what was left, were transfered to MCS...... |
Eastsidedame
Member
Username: Eastsidedame
Post Number: 486
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 2:01 pm: | |
I'd get back home a lot more often if Amtrak had a viable North-South route. This makes sense for the thousands of Detroit-born "snowbirds" who emigrated to the South, and still have family up north.
A "cross-country" route from Detroit to Dallas/Houston would be a sure money maker! There are a BOATLOAD of former Michiganians here in Houston. Of the 25 houses on my street, 5 are occupied by former MI folks, including 1 family from Marquette! |
Jcole
Member
Username: Jcole
Post Number: 2675
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 2:08 pm: | |
There are no out-state direct lines from Detroit to anywhere but Chicago. You have to take a Michigan Services train to Chicago and then catch the cross country trains from there. There is a train called the Texas Eagle that goes from Chicago to Dallas, Austin and San Antonio. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4668
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 2:09 pm: | |
^^^The Texas Eagle travels from Chicago to San Antonio via St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Fort Worth, and Austin. |
Flyingj
Member
Username: Flyingj
Post Number: 275
Registered: 08-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 3:07 pm: | |
Eastsidedame, I think the Texas Eagle runs a thruway Bus outta Dallas to the Gulf, try Wolveriene>City Of New Orleans>Sunset Limited |
Eastsidedame
Member
Username: Eastsidedame
Post Number: 489
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Monday, July 28, 2008 - 4:12 pm: | |
Folks, I am so sorry.....I totally forgot.
Houston's nearest departure points for Amtrak are San Antonio or New Orleans. Why? Here is a current picture of Houston's train station, Union Station. It's on the right. See the Choo-Choo Train???
The closest I'm ever going to get to Detroit from here is when the Astros play the Tigers! "Not that it ain't purdy, an all"....but Houston may need to build a new train station if energy prices continue to rise.
Careful what you do with your train station, Detroit. You may need it someday.
(Message edited by eastsidedame on July 28, 2008) |
Novine
Member
Username: Novine
Post Number: 628
Registered: 07-2007
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 1:33 am: | |
"In the pre-Amtrak era, was there passenger rail service between Detroit and Michigan cities not along the Chicago route like Flint, Lansing, Grand Rapids, Saginaw and Traverse City? If so, what happened to those lines, and when did that service stop?"
Sure, back before the interstates, railroads were the only practical way to travel any significant distance. Most Michigan towns had passenger rail service of one form or another. The Michigan railroad history page has some details on the towns served. Check out the 1960s and 70s for the decline and end of private rail passenger service.
http://www.michiganrailroads.c om/RRHX/Timeline/TimeLine1960s .htm
http://www.michiganrailroads.c om/RRHX/Timeline/TimeLine1970s .htm |
Busterwmu
Member
Username: Busterwmu
Post Number: 505
Registered: 09-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 7:30 am: | |
The Kalamazoo-state line stretch is currently rated for 95mph. The plan is to soon raise this to 105mph, and eventually up to 110. This is pretty reasonable for conventional track, right-of-way, and equipment. Amtrak owns this track and has since 1976, not CP Rail. CP Rail was looking a few years ago at purchasing the NS section from Detroit-Kalamazoo, but the short pasing sidings and lower clearence under the AA in AA apparently made them back out. Too bad, it would have been good for the line.
The boost toward 105 and 110 is one of the two projects which could help this line nicely in the short term. The other is tobuild the connector at W. Detroit Jct. over Junction street to go from the MC mainline to the CN Shoreline, thus eliminating the tedious and time consuming curving around on the Conrail just east of Clark.
Auto Train continued to run daily between Stanford FL and Lorton VA and is emensely popular.
Even if some of us don't feel Amtrak is yet a competitor on the Chicago-Detroit market, ridership is up several thousand on all three Michigan routes, actually, so some others must feel differently. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:23 am: | |
Professorcott wrote, "In the early 1980s Amtrak was providing rail service between Detroit and Toledo and Detroit and Pontiac (the latter included a commuter line in addition to the current Pontiac-Detroit-Chicago trips)."
Amtrak didn't serve Pontiac until 1994. The commuter service was operated by SEMTA, and in earlier years by Grand Trunk Western.
Eastsidedame wrote, "Detroit to Dallas/Houston would be a sure money maker!"
Amtrak has never made any money on its long-distance trains. And for many years prior to Amtrak, the private railroads made no money on their long-distance trains. It's almost impossible to make money on regular intercity service. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have it.
Eastsidedame wrote, "Careful what you do with your train station, Detroit. You may need it someday."
Are you referring to the MC Depot, or the current Amtrak station? What happens to the MC Depot is out of control for the city, since the slumlord Moroun owns it. As for the current Amtrak station, it's being used daily.
(Message edited by Burnsie on July 29, 2008) |
Jcole
Member
Username: Jcole
Post Number: 2690
Registered: 04-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 9:41 am: | |
Burnsie, I didn't say "Detroit to Dallas/Houston would be a sure money maker"
That was Eastsidedame. |
Detroitplanner
Member
Username: Detroitplanner
Post Number: 1765
Registered: 04-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:07 am: | |
Amtrak is very competitive when it comes to getting you to Chicago. When you factor in the extra time it takes to get to and through the airport, or the cost of parking/cabbing it to the airport, or parking in Downtown Chicago for those who drive, it makes more economic sense to take the train. You can also board the train at several places instead of just the two/three if you include A2 for Megabus.
If you're tall, you would rather train it than fly any time it is an option. you have a lot more legroom. |
Burnsie
Member
Username: Burnsie
Post Number: 1452
Registered: 11-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:19 am: | |
I'm sorry, Jcole! I try to be careful with my quotes but in this case things got messed up in the cut and paste department.
I've edited my original post to reflect the correction. |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1486
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:55 am: | |
The big edge the airlines have over Amtrak is you get more choices of when to depart. Amtrak has, for instance, one a.m. departure to Chicago from Detroit I believe, whereas from Metro Airport to O'Hare you have ten flights leaving on any given weekday morning. I prefer Amtrak, but most of the times that I'd like to use the train, I can't because the schedules are too flimsy. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4669
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 10:56 am: | |
quote:The big edge the airlines have over Amtrak is you get more choices of when to depart. Amtrak has, for instance, one a.m. departure to Chicago from Detroit I believe, whereas from Metro Airport to O'Hare you have ten flights leaving on any given weekday morning. I prefer Amtrak, but most of the times that I'd like to use the train, I can't because the schedules are too flimsy.
Exactly. And in places where you have both a short (<300 mi) trip and flexibility in departure time, such as the NEC and California, Amtrak is wildly popular. Last I checked, Amtrak had something like 67% of the combined air/rail market between DC and New York. |
Focusonthed
Member
Username: Focusonthed
Post Number: 1950
Registered: 02-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 12:37 pm: | |
Amtrak is also rather popular on the Illinois corridor, as it connects Chicago and Springfield (the capital), continuing on to St. Louis. This route is slated for high speed service, but has yet been unable to get off the ground. This has 5 trains daily, and traverses the Chicago-Springfield distance in 3:15, which Google Maps quotes at 3:23 by car. Even though that flight would be under an hour, I can't get to and into O'Hare fast enough to catch up to 3 hours. |
Detroitnerd
Member
Username: Detroitnerd
Post Number: 2777
Registered: 07-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 12:44 pm: | |
The guy who fixed up New York's subways was hired by Amtrak to clean up intercity service. If I remember it right, after a while, he resigned, saying the government wasn't serious about investing in rail transit.
I believe him. Amtrak is like a government program to disband America's passenger rail network piecemeal. Every try to take the Lakeshore Limited? You have to board a bus to Toledo.  |
Professorscott
Member
Username: Professorscott
Post Number: 1487
Registered: 12-2006
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 1:14 pm: | |
See my earlier post, 'nerd. Bush & Co. have nothing that would count as a transportation policy. Not just them; no administration has had one for years. Neither McCain nor Obama seem to have one either.
Apparently transportation isn't an important issue to Americans. If it was, you'd expect one party or the other to have a policy about it, or at least try to have one. |
Danindc
Member
Username: Danindc
Post Number: 4670
Registered: 10-2003
| | Posted on Tuesday, July 29, 2008 - 1:51 pm: | |
quote:Amtrak is also rather popular on the Illinois corridor, as it connects Chicago and Springfield (the capital), continuing on to St. Louis. This route is slated for high speed service, but has yet been unable to get off the ground. This has 5 trains daily, and traverses the Chicago-Springfield distance in 3:15, which Google Maps quotes at 3:23 by car. Even though that flight would be under an hour, I can't get to and into O'Hare fast enough to catch up to 3 hours.
The State of Illinois put up the money to increase the frequency of service on that route. As a result, the ridership has been going through the roof. I think Illinois is waiting for an opportunity to obtain federal funding for upgrades to the track in order to begin high-speed rail service (as part of the MWHSRI). Ohio is in a similar holding position, as they develop their Ohio Hub plan, although Ohio currently doesn't sponsor any Amtrak service.
quote:The guy who fixed up New York's subways was hired by Amtrak to clean up intercity service. If I remember it right, after a while, he resigned, saying the government wasn't serious about investing in rail transit.
Basically, David Gunn was forced out by the Bush Administration, since he didn't agree with the idea of selling off the Northeast Corridor and letting private companies compete for the service. He also wasn't a fan of the idea to eliminate long-distance routes. Mind you, this was a career railroad man who previously ran NYC Transit, SEPTA, WMATA, and NJ Transit (and I believe the Toronto Transit Commission), and came out of retirement in Nova Scotia to set Amtrak straight. Just another casualty of ideology over substance.... |
New threads cannot be started on this page. The threads above are previous posts made to this thread.