Pere Marquette high speed?

[Jetlink]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/ ... _on_h.html

[Saturnalia]

Interesting. I didn't know TIGER was still going. Anyways, if I was in charge of Amtrak's Michigan Services, I'd put P370/371 onto the already 110 MPH DET corridor. Save the last few miles for the freights, and that would give them more flexability with freight on CSX, and would also make the re-arrangement of the Porter-Chicago lines for a seperate Amtrak line easier.

Also, I think it might be smart to put the Amtrak trains on the South Shore into Chicago as a way around the freight lines. Instead of re-arranging the freight lines, double-track the entire South Shore from Michigan City to Chicago, adding a 3rd track closer to town as well. just an idea---anyone got any thoughts?

[SD80MAC]

Right, because I want to take the PM from Grand Rapids to New Buffalo, to get off and go hop on a Wolverine to ride all the way to Detroit, going 110 mph for maybe 1/4 of the trip, instead of driving for 2 hours?

Sorry, I don't see that guys logic in "letting Pere Marquette passengers link with high speed rail". If anything, a cut that $500 million in TIGER grants should be used to add another train to the Pere Marquette route.

[Jetlink]

Agreed. As a frequent user of the Michigan Amtrak service I have a hard time seeing how anything in that article really makes much sense from a practical application standpoint.

[bnsfben]

Right, because I want to take the PM from Grand Rapids to New Buffalo, to get off and go hop on a Wolverine to ride all the way to Detroit, going 110 mph for maybe 1/4 of the trip, instead of driving for 2 hours?

Sorry, I don't see that guys logic in "letting Pere Marquette passengers link with high speed rail". If anything, a cut that $500 million in TIGER grants should be used to add another train to the Pere Marquette route.

This is why I really support a train from GR to Detroit via CSX to Trowbridge (East Lansing), CN from East Lansing to Detroit. I would personally use a train like that all the time. Think about it, all the stations are already in place that would need a station. Stations are GR, East Lansing, Durand (I wouldn't have this train stop at Durand. No platform on the Chicago wye), Pontiac, Birmingham, Royal Oak and Detroit. There wouldn't be too much infrastructure cost other than the physical trains and adding a wye at Trowbridge.

[J T]

Right, because I want to take the PM from Grand Rapids to New Buffalo, to get off and go hop on a Wolverine to ride all the way to Detroit, going 110 mph for maybe 1/4 of the trip, instead of driving for 2 hours?

That's the same thing I thought as well. Who would want to ride the train to New Buffalo, somehow get from the Pere Marquette "station" to the Wolverine station stop, and then continue on to Detroit? A 2.5 hour train ride to NB, transfer time and then another what, two hours or so to Detroit? I guess if you don't have a car and want to go to Detroit that might be a valuable service, but how many people would they need to do that on a daily basis to warrant a stop and putting in a transfer service?

[Saturnalia]

Any P371/P370 that ends up at Chicago via the amtrak corridor would be a full train to chicago, no transfers (at least in my "plan") Why not a GR-Lansing-Plymouth-DET train?

[J T]

Why not a GR-Lansing-Plymouth-DET train?

Because not enough people in GR want to ride the train to the Detroit "area." And I put area in quotes because going to Chicago is much different from going to Detroit. Chicago is a destination city for 1 or 2 day trips for a LOT of people, Detroit is not.

[Ypsi]

Any P371/P370 that ends up at Chicago via the amtrak corridor would be a full train to chicago, no transfers (at least in my "plan") Why not a GR-Lansing-Plymouth-DET train?

because there is a port huron- lansing- Battle creek, the 364/365. and amtrak wouldn't do an alternate route from detroit, plymouth is right down the highway from ann arbor, like 15-25 minutes... it would also be an extra 2 hours or more added to the trip from detroit. another factor might be lees patrions too, you just never know.

[Big Frank]

Too bad they couldn't just run down the old NS to KZOO and than onto the High speed section

[rob]

Too bad they couldn't just run down the old NS to KZOO and than onto the High speed section

why run down the grand elk line. it would cost a lot of money to rehab the line when you could put a connecter track in new buffalo from csx to the amtrak line.


Rob

[bctrainfan]

Yep, just dont have the same draw for passengers to Detroit, it doesn't have the central concentrated downtown area, the heavy traffic, or the incredibly high prices for parking that Chicago has. Chicago is better for walking, and has better mass transit too. The expensive Chicago parking makes the difference for most people I know that ride the train, otherwise its just cheaper to drive.

[fmilhaupt]

'seems to me that there would be only two beneficiaries from this sort of realignment:

1) New Buffalo residents who could get an additional train to-from Chicago.

2) The casino in New Buffalo, that currently has no access to passenger service from GR/Holland.

[KzooNS/GDLKFan]

Too bad they couldn't just run down the old NS to KZOO and than onto the High speed section

Actually, that was put into the MDOT rail plan, two more PM trains to Kalamazoo down the GDLK.

[C30-7A]

I agree with all of the comments here except the Detroit ones.
The Pere Marquette as it is right now should definitely be left alone, although adding a second frequency to Chicago would be a giant benefit and is something that could and should be done, especially given there wouldn't need to be any upgrades to infrastructure and only marginal crew and operational cost increases.
On Detroit, here's how I see it: There is no longer a connection between the GTW and CSX at Trowbridge. Reinstalling it while still gaining access to the East Lansing station would involve a massive reconfiguration of the interlocking. I don't see that happening and the roundabout route via Durand doesn't make a lot of sense to me. No, it makes MUCH more sense to run the train on CSX most of the way. You would need to build a new platform at East Lansing, but this would be easier to do after the current, closed MSU structures in the vicinity of the station are torn down. The station at Charlottesville, VA currently serves two routes in a fasion very similar to East Lansing - The NS main used by the Crescent and NE Regional trains crosses the CSX mainline south of the station a distance, but their are two platforms available for use on both lines. A shelter or some small platform could also be built in Lake Odessa to serve passengers who may be traveling from there or surrounding communities like Ionia. Additional stations or platforms could be added at some smaller, suburban Detroit cites like HOWELL, BRIGHTON and Plymouth (which already has a station and platform!). All of these locations are populated and growing and would either be destinations to or from Grand Rapids, Lansing or Detroit. Remember, guys, this train isn't running just from A to B. It's serving all three of Michigan's biggest and most important cities. After Plymouth or Livonia, the train could utilize the existing Michigan Avenue connection in Dearborn to CP-Lou on the Michigan Line and then run on to Detroit and Pontiac (hitting the same suburban stations Ben mentioned) before making a quick turn ala 350 and 355 and returning. This train could also potentially double as the added trains from Chicago, as well (leave Chicago in the morning, leave Grand Rapids at noon, return to GR in the evening and then run on to a late arrival in Chicago). There are a LOT of possibilities here. I didn't even mention that the Plymouth sub runs RIGHT by both Gerald R. Ford International Airport AND Capital Region International in Lansing. Save for the costs of adding new facilities and upgrading the track (which [and correct me if I'm wrong]) is ALREADY at 60MPH standards for passenger trains in the current CSX timetable), a Grand Rapids-Detroit service is extremely doable. If the tracks were upgraded for trains to run 79MPH or higher (with the eventual PTC) it would compete exceptionally well with I-96. No matter how slow the average speed ends up, this corridor WILL do well. ALL of Amtrak's new corridors started in the last 20 years have been smashing successes. Look at them: The services in Califorina and Illinois, the Downeaster in Maine, the Piedmont in North Carolina, the Heartland Flyer in Oklahoma...they've ALL worked. There is NO reason to suggest a Detroit train wouldn't. And there ARE reasons to go to Detroit, contrary to what some have said. Think about what's there: The Detroit Institute of Arts, TIGERS and RED WINGS games (which as we've seen enjoy support from all over the state), the Casinos, The Detroit Zoo. No, Detroit is not as big of a destination as Chicago, but it is, nonetheless, a destination. Perhaps that's why Amtrak has three round trips per day between Detroit and Chicago and offers thruway service to Toledo and on to New York, Washington and other destinations via the Lake Shore and Capitol Limiteds. If there wasn't a giant passenger base into or out of Detroit, passenger loadings to or from those major, intermediate suburbs like Royal Oak, Brighton and Howell to Lansing or Grand Rapids would more than likely populate the train.
Of course, all of this would require upgrades and an increase in state subsidies. And with Auto interests controlling the legislature (itself currently made up of anti-rail republicans and non-progressives) this is not likely to happen any time soon. A second, expanded Pere Marquette over the Grand Rapids sub (without cutting onto the AML at New Buffalo) is far more realistic and would be the stepping stone to a Detroit service in the future. This is what the focus should be on now. And hopefully that will happen in the shorter term future.

[SD80MAC]

If it would work so well, why hasn't it been done?

There's a reason all of the new corridors in the last 20 years have done well: there were studies conducted and ridership to support them. You're really over estimating the amount of people that would actually want to go to Detroit.

[Saturnalia]

a few 2 cent things I'm seeing:
1. P371 should leave GR earlier, like at 7 or even 6:30 to get into the business people market. Currently, they get to Chicago to late to have pre-lunch meetings. If you can get to Chicago by 10 or sooner, you can tap that market. with the current 7:45 departure, you don't even get to street level in Chicago until 11 AM.
2. Any connection from the GR sub to the Amtrak line would be problematic (EXPENSIVE!!) because its not a grade-level crossing (CSX over Amtrak)
3. A GR-DET train could make sense, since you are hitting the top 3 Michigan cities, including the capitol. I'd think starting a train in both GR and Detroit at the same time, meeting in Lansing, then continuing on twice per day (morning and evening) might make sense, but like I said with P371, the times MUST be right.

[J T]

a few 2 cent things I'm seeing:
1. P371 should leave GR earlier, like at 7 or even 6:30 to get into the business people market. Currently, they get to Chicago to late to have pre-lunch meetings.

Who are these people you're concerned about not getting there in time for pre-lunch meetings?

[Saturnalia]

a few 2 cent things I'm seeing:
1. P371 should leave GR earlier, like at 7 or even 6:30 to get into the business people market. Currently, they get to Chicago to late to have pre-lunch meetings.

Who are these people you're concerned about not getting there in time for pre-lunch meetings?

Okay, maybe not pre-lunch, but you are still losing nearly 2 hours just by taking the train, and starting an hour later than most drivers and fliers dosn't help ridership.

In real estate, its location, location, location.
In passenger transport, its time, time, time.

[J T]

Okay, maybe not pre-lunch, but you are still losing nearly 2 hours just by taking the train, and starting an hour later than most drivers and fliers doesn't help ridership.

In real estate, it's location, location, location.
In passenger transport, it's time, time, time.

How long have they been doing the 7:30ish departure? For a very long time as far as I can tell. If arriving in Chicago at the current time was an issue with most regular passengers, I'm sure it would have changed long ago.