Saturnalia wrote:
1. CSX will still offer local freight service on the GR Sub and significant overhead traffic to/from GRR
Standard Railfan wrote:Local service is not dependent upon a 60+ mph track segment. Overhead traffic does not need to run through GR.
Is this any different than the GDLK? They both literally have the same sort of traffic base, once you factor out CSX's coal trains. So maybe the CSX wouldn't then really need to be 60, but neither does the GDLK.
Saturnalia wrote:
2. The GDLK is NOT significantly shorter...in fact it may actually be longer
Standard Railfan wrote:Shorter distance to Dedicated high speed passenger corridor
Yes, but does that actually significantly reduce travel time? The AML routing is actually about 10-15 miles longer based on a quick Google Maps measurement which isn't as exact as the 136 miles I have as timetable from GR to Porter. So you have to make up that extra time. 110mph is worth something, but it isn't light speed. So they could save perhaps 15 minutes. So what? Most of that would probably be due to fewer station stops by cutting out HOM, BAM and SJM, since they'd likely run mostly express from Kzoo to Chicago.
While we're on this one, they could probably shave off 10-15 minutes from the existing route by getting a few small towns to drop their antiquated slow orders so trains can operate according to track geometry. Perhaps agree to throw up a couple thousand dollars in fencing. That's a cheaply-gotten 15 minutes right there.
Saturnalia wrote:
3. Hills mean nothing to passenger trains
Standard Railfan wrote:I wasn’t aware that the laws of physics do not apply to passenger trains.
Oh man you caught me red handed. Allow me to clarify: Hills mean nothing to passenger train
operations.
Amtrak is almost never slowed significantly on gradients because of the grades themselves, they can typically maintain track speed as defined by track geometry. Saugatuck hill is about 3 miles long. So they can only go about 40 mph for 3 miles. Not a deal breaker what so ever.
Saturnalia wrote:
4. The GDLK's track is in terrible shape, relative to passenger standards. CSX is a 60+ MPH line already
5. The GDLK doesn't have CTC and PTC, CSX already does.
6. There is no NW wye at Kalamazoo.
Standard Railfan wrote:This situation can be remedied.
"Situation that can be remedied". If I have it straight, your logic is: Let's spend a century's worth of PM operating subsidies to upgrade the GDLK.
Figure at least a million bucks per unimproved crossing (there are at least a couple dozen of those on the GDLK), several dozen miles worth of new rail, replace the vast majority of the ties, install at least one if not more controlled sidings, throw up tens of millions in new signal equipment (plus PTC!) and perhaps build a new station or two. Don't forget that new connector in Kalamazoo which will probably require some land acquisition. And the Grand Rapids Station alignment needs a new diamond in a curve over CSX. I'm sure Jacksonville won't like that idea!
Right now MDOT pays about $2 Million to cover the 370/371 operating loss each year, a sum that includes track maintenance fees to CSX. So you're arguing that we should put somewhere around a century worth of subsidy into upgrading a different line. Even quadruple these fees, assuming Amtrak must maintain a greater share of the GRS, and you still would have a 25-year investment return period, based only on the upfront upgrade costs. MDOT would still be on the hook for the recurring maintenance and operating losses.
Saturnalia wrote:
7. There is no connection from the GDLK to the GR Amtrak station without TWO backup moves, THREE if you're coming from Holland...that's three backup moves and one controlling-end switch to run HOM-GRR-Kzoo.
Standard Railfan wrote: Kzoo already needs to be reconfigured. Note the excess movements GDLK is required to make
The connector Amtrak needs is not the connector the GDLK needs. The GDLK needs a new NE wye, while this new Amtrak route would need the NW wye. So no, these two projects, while dealing with the same track, have almost no overlap. construction-wise, a few million might be saved in mobilization and combining the signal work, but that's probably about it. Separate land acquisition, track installation, and additional signals.
Saturnalia wrote:
8. The MDOT has already invested in the CSX live via paying for the Pere Marquette. That's way more than the nearly nothing MDOT has spent on upgrading the GDLK.
Standard Railfan wrote:This “investment” is a recurring cost.
Of course it is. So you propose another round of hundreds of millions in new investment...which results in little to no savings in the recurring costs, because they'd still have to pay for track maintenance on the GDLK - and actually probably a higher share than even on a coal-train-less CSX. The operating loss would still be there, too. So this point is moot on operating and stinks to heck in terms of up-front capital.
Saturnalia wrote:
9. Hollanders won't ride to Chicago if they have to go to GRR first, adding close to two hours running time
Standard Railfan wrote:care to cite your source? (You are probably right)
I don't need a source, it's simple math.
Right now you can drive from HOM to CHI in about 3 hours. The train takes about 3 hours. The train via GR/Kzoo would be at least 5 hours. What would you be doing?
Saturnalia wrote:
10. Amtrak would no longer serve the South Haven/St Joseph areas
Standard Railfan wrote:St Joe can be served in other ways. Bangor is low volume and seasonal.
What "other ways"? I mean sure they could drive to New Buffalo. Or you could continue to serve a popular stop. Following my logic above you're also cancelling out Holland, which serves not just Holland but the lakeshore up towards Grand Haven and Muskegon as well. Those people will not be driving to Grand Rapids to take the train, if none are available from Holland.
Saturnalia wrote:
11. There is no meaningful population between GR and Kzoo
Standard Railfan wrote:There is no meaningful population between Holland and Indiana
Sum this up: you're assuming Holland is meaningful (that's one good intermediate stop) and let's add St Joseph as well.
So we're dropping two decently busy intermediates for zero. Sounds like a great service plan to me!
So to summarize, just to shave off 15-30 minutes of running time and create GR-Kzoo passenger rail access, we're willing to throw well over a hundred million dollars at the upgrades (probably more like double or triple that), and toss out the busy stops at HOM and SJM.
This is the worst deal in the history of deals, maybe ever.