Fort Wayne to fund high speed rail study

[AARR]

Now I think the Royal Oak station is nothing but a platform. I was a young lad when I lived in that area, so I might be wrong.

They are opening (or maybe they already did) a new station on the other side of the tracks (In Troy ) I haven't seen it yet but I'm told its more than just a platform.

[j_c1987]

This topic is not worth arguing and getting upset about, The only think that is upsetting about the topic is that it is a waste of money for the amount of people that actually ride the train. In a hurry ? I'm getting on a jet ! and besides the Pennsylvania Railroad was running High Speed to Chicago 80 years ago !

Riding the rails is cheaper than flying, but a estimated 2-3 hr flight to Boston from Chicago or South Bend would be 18 hrs with Amtrak. When my wife did the figuring I think it was half the price to go by rail. I think if Amtrak did not have to stop for any traffic and cut the time down with high speed more people would ride the rail again.

I still think It would be neat to see more private rail service for long distance travel. If Amtrak made themselves a little more attractive help too. Have a fellow trains pulled around by a few restored GG1s would be awesome!

They are opening (or maybe they already did) a new station on the other side of the tracks (In Troy ) I haven't seen it yet but I'm told its more than just a platform

Yeah I haven't lived in the Detroit Area in 17 years. A lot has changed probably since then. I remember the old station bveing used for carpooling. The Amtrak station was just a platform with a sign. I think that was Royal Oak. Or may be Dearborn. Not sure. I was only 10 years old at the time. Now Mcdonalds was right across the street from The platform. That I guess that would be a plus.

[Bulby]

Riding the rails is cheaper than flying, but a estimated 2-3 hr flight to Boston from Chicago or South Bend would be 18 hrs with Amtrak. When my wife did the figuring I think it was half the price to go by rail. I think if Amtrak did not have to stop for any traffic and cut the time down with high speed more people would ride the rail again.

I hate to be the party pooper who bursts the bubble, but "higher speed rail" is not the magic cure-all for cutting transit time. I would like to point out two examples.

1. Northeast Corridor: If Acela Express and a Northeast Regional leave Washington Union Station at the same time, Acela will pull in to New York Penn Station only 35 minutes before the regional. What kills Acela's time? Curves. They can run up to 135 miles per hour in some places, but even with tilt technology, they get hit with slow curves that rob them of their speed.

2. Chicago-St. Louis: If you glance at a current Amtrak timetable for the Lincoln Service, and compare with a 1950's GM&O timetable, the GM&O made more stops and was still carded for the same or better than what Amtrak does now. In the '50s, the GM&O engineers could not legally do more than 79mph; Amtrak hits 110mph. Before the section of 110 that is in service was upgraded, NONE of the Amtrak runs could equal the GM&O running time. What kills the trains? Spots of slow running, curves or permanent slow orders.

Amtrak high-ups are beginning to point out that for a fraction of the cost of upgrading 20 miles of 79mph running to 110, you can clear the 5 miles of 30 mph speed restriction next to it and get the same or better timesavings.

[j_c1987]

Riding the rails is cheaper than flying, but a estimated 2-3 hr flight to Boston from Chicago or South Bend would be 18 hrs with Amtrak. When my wife did the figuring I think it was half the price to go by rail. I think if Amtrak did not have to stop for any traffic and cut the time down with high speed more people would ride the rail again.

I hate to be the party pooper who bursts the bubble, but "higher speed rail" is not the magic cure-all for cutting transit time. I would like to point out two examples.

1. Northeast Corridor: If Acela Express and a Northeast Regional leave Washington Union Station at the same time, Acela will pull in to New York Penn Station only 35 minutes before the regional. What kills Acela's time? Curves. They can run up to 135 miles per hour in some places, but even with tilt technology, they get hit with slow curves that rob them of their speed.

2. Chicago-St. Louis: If you glance at a current Amtrak timetable for the Lincoln Service, and compare with a 1950's GM&O timetable, the GM&O made more stops and was still carded for the same or better than what Amtrak does now. In the '50s, the GM&O engineers could not legally do more than 79mph; Amtrak hits 110mph. Before the section of 110 that is in service was upgraded, NONE of the Amtrak runs could equal the GM&O running time. What kills the trains? Spots of slow running, curves or permanent slow orders.

Amtrak high-ups are beginning to point out that for a fraction of the cost of upgrading 20 miles of 79mph running to 110, you can clear the 5 miles of 30 mph speed restriction next to it and get the same or better timesavings.

Yeah. I am just saying maybe if the trip took 8hrs instead of 18 we would of probably considered going to boston. For what I dunno. For some reason my wife wants to visit boston. Air fairs can be out of this world. At least for me and my budget. The Southshore is like the best thing around when me and my wife want to go to Chicago. $45 point to point is half the price in gas. The chitlins ride for free. Can't beat that. I think our governments State and Federal need to come to grips that countries in Europe are smaller than America. A lot of the major cities are closer together making mass transit by rail more logical. I could be wrong.

[MagnumForce]

I think you'd find flying and Amtrak are closer in cost over 500 miles than you'd think. Just out of curiosity I checked Toledo to Denver by train and Detroit to Denver by plane and was really amazed.

[Typhoon]

Riding the rails is cheaper than flying, but a estimated 2-3 hr flight to Boston from Chicago or South Bend would be 18 hrs with Amtrak. When my wife did the figuring I think it was half the price to go by rail.

Do you not put a value on your time?

[justalurker66]

Do you not put a value on your time?

One year I drove to Washington DC (from the South Bend area) with my wife in the spring then took the Capitol Limited in the fall. Gas was just shy of $4 per gallon but I managed to get there and back cheaper than the train tickets for two. And no, we didn't get a sleeper. We also got there faster by car.

Air travel are not as convenient as some may imagine. Getting a direct flight can be impossible from a small airport (so add the travel time to get to the airport that gets to the destination). But there is a chance the plane will be going the right way. A railroad station on an East West track isn't going to let people go south. (The proposed Fort Wayne HSR will not help people wanting to go between Fort Wayne and Indy ... unless they go via Chicago.)

If the train is going where one wants to go the boarding time is less. No showing up at the airport an hour or more early for "security". Everything should be factored into the comparison - if one is made.

[MagnumForce]

When traveling with more than one person, driving is almost always cheaper.

[railohio]

High-speed rail given a big nudge

It's been bandied about for years.

There have been starts and stalls, but Wednesday marked a significant step in making a high-speed rail sys­tem from Chicago to Columbus, Ohio – passing through Fort Wayne – a reality.

Source: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /308079987

[railohio]

When traveling with more than one person, driving is almost always cheaper.

If you're only paying fuel. If you have to figure in a mileage rate rather than just gas receipts it starts to even out. Two people from Milwaukee to Chicago is about the same on Amtrak vs. paying mileage the whole way for one vehicle.

[CG Tower]

Oy vey...

High-speed rail given a big nudge

It's been bandied about for years.

There have been starts and stalls, but Wednesday marked a significant step in making a high-speed rail sys­tem from Chicago to Columbus, Ohio – passing through Fort Wayne – a reality.

Source: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /308079987

[j_c1987]

Oy vey...

High-speed rail given a big nudge

It's been bandied about for years.

There have been starts and stalls, but Wednesday marked a significant step in making a high-speed rail sys­tem from Chicago to Columbus, Ohio – passing through Fort Wayne – a reality.

Source: http://www.journalgazette.net/article/2 ... /308079987

I heard about the Chicago - Columbus line on the news. I wondered if it was the same line as this topic. I guess it is. would driving from Columbus to Chicago by car would be about 5 hrs and 45 min. You would save well......1 hr and 45 min. The gas compared to the price of a all round trip by rail really be worth it?

[Notch 8]

Why an environmental study if this is going to be on an existing ROW ? How do we know it will be cheaper then driving, We don't know the price of the ticket ? And instead of Hi Speed from Columbus/Fort Wayne/Chicago I think People would be PLEASED if a normal passenger train ran this route and not the hi speed pie in the shy scheme that's being cooked up... A train that ran on schedule could fill this void for a lot less money !

[Saturnalia]

Practically EVERYTHING needs an environmental impact study...

[bumthum]

As a little insight here, I rode Britain's much vaunted (and heavily subsidized) rail service from just north of London to Edinburgh Scotland in 2009. The round trip ticket was over 300 pounds which put me close to $500 USD given the exchange rate at the time. I didn't get to sit in a seat on the ride north, in fact I had to sit on the floor next to a handicap latrine, and on the ride south I only got to sit in a seat for around 1 hour. While all of the connections ran smoothly and the trains sets and facilities were nice, I couldn't help but think of flying in a more positive light. IIRC the trip was around 3 - 3.5 hours with change overs and connections, that would have been perhaps 45 minutes - 1 hour of flying time and it probably would not cost me almost $500 to fly to say Knoxville, KY from Fort Wayne (which is relatively close to the same distance). I am glad, for life-story sake, that I rode the train while I was in the U.K. but air travel just makes more sense in the U.S. for anything over a commute... unless you want a train ride for the experience. Maybe if passenger rail ran like it did in the 1930's when railroads took passenger service seriously and passenger trains received priority, but you are never going to get on time, most of the time, service on shared rail.

That said, I would gladly take the train to Chicago if service returned to the old PRR Baker Street station here in Fort Wayne, but only for the experience. I don't know if the line near the airport could support passenger rail at any reasonable speed, but I doubt a platform near the airport is a good solution for Fort Wayne.