We’ll see additional Wolverine, Pere Marquette and probably even Blue Water frequencies well before additional mileage is added.Steve B wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 12:51 pmAmtrak's current Michigan trains are viable because so many people ride them to Chicago for business or fun, and connections to other trains. Union Station is located where you don't need a car to be able to get to a lot of neat stuff. I don't see a sufficiently comparable draw for train travel between Detroit and Grand Rapids. Maybe it would be sort of popular, but the state doesn't seem to want to take the chance on spending tons only to find out that it wouldn't be especially busy. It would also be spreading hard to obtain rail resources thinly.
Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Amtrak is viable because the voters are so far willing to let both sides of the legislature mortgage the future with wreckless spending. We're subsidizing multiple parallel modes of transportation with no present day funding sources sufficient to cover costs.
As for the GR Plymouth subs if CSX were to decide tonunload it a short line partnership that encourages traffic to stay on CSX.
As for the GR Plymouth subs if CSX were to decide tonunload it a short line partnership that encourages traffic to stay on CSX.
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Have lived in Howell in the same home trackside on the Plymouth Sub for 52 years come Nov 7th. Regular passenger train service left us due to Amtrak five months after we moved here. We don't need to see regular passenger train service return here EVER again, so this is all good news.Saturnalia wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 3:44 pmWe’ll see additional Wolverine, Pere Marquette and probably even Blue Water frequencies well before additional mileage is added.
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
It would be interesting to look at total tonnage carried over the Plymouth Sub the past 20 years.
- MQT1223
- O Scale Railfanner
- Posts: 4179
- Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 1:46 pm
- Location: Grandville, Michigan
- Contact:
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
I still think in this scenario that Porter could be reconfigured to have a diamond re-installed, and having CSX cross from the old PM to the old Michigan Central Porter Branch, thus skipping the mess that is NS and going straight into the IHB. Granted the Porter Branch would probably need as much work as the Plymouth Sub does in most places.Talk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 2:17 ameven if CSX was willing to sell to its competitor, it would be a large capital investment. CP's Traffic Volume would likely require some sidings (like Saugatuck on the GR) to be extended. Not to mention the Plymouth Sub would need to get PTC & new signals. Further, Saugatuck Hill has shown to be a large obstacle and any CP trains would need extra power or a stationed helper set.
Then they would have to hop onto the NS at Porter anyway
1223 OUT! President and Founder of the Buck Creek Central, the Rolling River Route! (2012-2017) President and Founder of the Lamberton Valley Railroad, The Tin Plate Road! Proudly railfanning with Asperger's since 1996.
- LansingRailFan
- Pabst Peddler
- Posts: 11983
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Lansing
- Contact:
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Where does the Plymouth Sub need work?MQT1223 wrote: ↑Sun May 08, 2022 10:45 amI still think in this scenario that Porter could be reconfigured to have a diamond re-installed, and having CSX cross from the old PM to the old Michigan Central Porter Branch, thus skipping the mess that is NS and going straight into the IHB. Granted the Porter Branch would probably need as much work as the Plymouth Sub does in most places.Talk wrote: ↑Sat Apr 23, 2022 2:17 ameven if CSX was willing to sell to its competitor, it would be a large capital investment. CP's Traffic Volume would likely require some sidings (like Saugatuck on the GR) to be extended. Not to mention the Plymouth Sub would need to get PTC & new signals. Further, Saugatuck Hill has shown to be a large obstacle and any CP trains would need extra power or a stationed helper set.
Then they would have to hop onto the NS at Porter anyway
-
- Rock you like a Hurricane
- Posts: 1205
- Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 6:16 pm
- Location: Under a palm tree
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
I am not sure what work you think would be needed on the Porter Branch, but it could handle the current amount of traffic on the GR sub without any upgrades. The bigger issue is the IHB west of Ivanhoe is not really set up for through traffic. The Gary & Western is often used to stage trains for Gibson or the Lakefront. It would take a change in operating patterns on the IHB to permit a lot of through traffic running that way.
Also, if a diamond was installed, eastbounds over 5500 feet would have to hold out at Clay St, which is roughly 11 miles away from Porter, and south of the Willow Creek diamond. A big deal to coordinate and get the train across both without blocking crossings.
All of this talk is fantasy anyway. One only has to look at the Q326 that stalled last week to see why no one wants it as a through route. 8800 tons, 2 -9s and it could not make it. The line is just not suitable for modern railroads modes of operations. CSX, NS and CP through their trackage rights, can run a train almost twice as heavy with the same power between Chicago and Detroit, using the same amount of crews.
- MrAnderson
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Thu Jun 25, 2020 1:44 pm
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Or they could restore passenger service in a future where rail gets the funding it deserves and it would be fantastic. Never say never.BL2-1843 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:03 pmHave lived in Howell in the same home trackside on the Plymouth Sub for 52 years come Nov 7th. Regular passenger train service left us due to Amtrak five months after we moved here. We don't need to see regular passenger train service return here EVER again, so this is all good news.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: Just north of the CSX Detroit sub
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
I hate to be pessimistic about passenger rail travel. But every time I see Amtrak in Michigan whether it be the blue water and Wolverine, there is literally nobody on it or few people on it. The corridor to Chicago from Pontiac is owned by MDOT and that is the best we are going to get in our lifetime in my opinion. The next thing this state MIGHT be able to do is build passenger corridor from Ann Arbor MI to Traverse City MI because many people would not have to take heavily used highways like US 127 and I 75 from wherever they live in. But that has been thrown on and off ever since they announced it in 2014. People on here have even doubt it would even work. But I hate to be negative, but it seems like as time goes on they just dont have the funding. Sadly this is not the 1940s anymore. People just wanna fly or take their cars places. We are blessed to have the MDOT Michigan line as they have speeds up to 110 mph on portions west of Kalamazoo and quickly expanding east. If other states could do stuff like Brightline in Florida and out west they have a real shot to compete with airlinesMrAnderson wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 2:03 pmOr they could restore passenger service in a future where rail gets the funding it deserves and it would be fantastic. Never say never.BL2-1843 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:03 pmHave lived in Howell in the same home trackside on the Plymouth Sub for 52 years come Nov 7th. Regular passenger train service left us due to Amtrak five months after we moved here. We don't need to see regular passenger train service return here EVER again, so this is all good news.
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
MDOT owns Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Amtrak owns Kalamazoo to Porter.CSXBOY wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:46 pmI hate to be pessimistic about passenger rail travel. But every time I see Amtrak in Michigan whether it be the blue water and Wolverine, there is literally nobody on it or few people on it. The corridor to Chicago from Pontiac is owned by MDOT and that is the best we are going to get in our lifetime in my opinion. The next thing this state MIGHT be able to do is build passenger corridor from Ann Arbor MI to Traverse City MI because many people would not have to take heavily used highways like US 127 and I 75 from wherever they live in. But that has been thrown on and off ever since they announced it in 2014. People on here have even doubt it would even work. But I hate to be negative, but it seems like as time goes on they just dont have the funding. Sadly this is not the 1940s anymore. People just wanna fly or take their cars places. We are blessed to have the MDOT Michigan line as they have speeds up to 110 mph on portions west of Kalamazoo and quickly expanding east. If other states could do stuff like Brightline in Florida and out west they have a real shot to compete with airlines
Look at the population density along an Ann Arbor to Traverse City line. There isn't any.
The 110 mph isn't exactly quickly expanding east.
Look at a population density map along the Brightline route. That should give you a big clue why it might actually work in the long run.
As for out west, if you mean California, that's working out really not too good.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: Just north of the CSX Detroit sub
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
I heard that they were gonna have 110 MPH running from Kalamazoo to Jackson sometime at the end of this year. I think this is why NS is sending Amtrak a ton of ballast trains in the past few months.DaveO wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 4:07 pmMDOT owns Dearborn to Kalamazoo, Amtrak owns Kalamazoo to Porter.CSXBOY wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 3:46 pmI hate to be pessimistic about passenger rail travel. But every time I see Amtrak in Michigan whether it be the blue water and Wolverine, there is literally nobody on it or few people on it. The corridor to Chicago from Pontiac is owned by MDOT and that is the best we are going to get in our lifetime in my opinion. The next thing this state MIGHT be able to do is build passenger corridor from Ann Arbor MI to Traverse City MI because many people would not have to take heavily used highways like US 127 and I 75 from wherever they live in. But that has been thrown on and off ever since they announced it in 2014. People on here have even doubt it would even work. But I hate to be negative, but it seems like as time goes on they just dont have the funding. Sadly this is not the 1940s anymore. People just wanna fly or take their cars places. We are blessed to have the MDOT Michigan line as they have speeds up to 110 mph on portions west of Kalamazoo and quickly expanding east. If other states could do stuff like Brightline in Florida and out west they have a real shot to compete with airlines
Look at the population density along an Ann Arbor to Traverse City line. There isn't any.
The 110 mph isn't exactly quickly expanding east.
Look at a population density map along the Brightline route. That should give you a big clue why it might actually work in the long run.
As for out west, if you mean California, that's working out really not too good.
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Ride the train sometime. I was shocked when I rode the Blue Water to Port Huron in 2019 at how many people were riding! Pre-COVID, Amtrak Michigan Services were doing really well!
- David Collins
- Train Paparazzi
- Posts: 3134
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2020 10:46 am
- Location: Bloomfield Hills, Mi
- Contact:
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
- LansingRailFan
- Pabst Peddler
- Posts: 11983
- Joined: Fri Nov 01, 2019 4:21 pm
- Location: Lansing
- Contact:
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Potential sale of GLC with the passing of the owner/founder/patriarch of the family company definitely puts the interchange at risk and lowering car counts. If Watco, who owns shares in Federated Railways already, purchases more or all of GLC, they could adopt a similar structure to the CSX interchange that LSRC does and those cars exchanged at AP go down to Wahlbridge.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 460
- Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 7:07 pm
- Location: Just north of the CSX Detroit sub
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
I rode the wolverine 351 and 354 to and from Ann Arbor to go railfanning all day in Battle Creek. I was pretty surprised about how many trains rode the trains. Post pandemic too.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:40 pm
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Fair point.TSS wrote: ↑Mon Apr 25, 2022 11:02 ama. Crossing over ties up the mainline for only as long as it takes for the train to get across. Running on trackage rights involves the slow process of the train entering the main (about the same as crossing over) and then the train is a part of the traffic flow and has to be dealt with for hours. If rational minds were at play, I would think NS would welcome a crossover vs a trackage rights situation.3. The least practical suggestion: the idea of them connecting the GR Sub with the Porter Branch, would only further complicate the current arrangement as instead of getting onto NS, trains have to CROSS over that busy line and you can guarantee CP isn't getting priority. Never mind the cost and scope of installing the diamonds and the extra burden put on maintenance forces.
b. I’ve heard that they were thinking of building a connector track instead of diamonds. Trains would go from CSX to NS and then cross from main to main to main and finally diverge onto the Porter branch.
It's more of a matter of construction and consistent upkeep in regards to installing a diamond connection though. If the business and ease of travel is worth what would be the constant maintenance then they could go that route but I don't think CP (at present) runs enough trains over NS in the current arrangement for corporate to justify going to such lengths and you can forget about CSX.
-
- Railroadfan...fan
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:40 pm
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Scenario 8.0 LSRC gets the entire line from Plymouth to PorterGR H & C wrote: ↑Fri Apr 29, 2022 5:56 pmThat’s why I like reading the paper railroad forum.
Scenarios continued:
Scenario 5.0 Watco/Grand Elk takes control of the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 6.0 GLC takes control of the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 6.0 CP gets the entire line from Plymouth to Porter.
Scenario 7.0 Amtrak gets the line from Porter to Grand Rapids for a high-speed passenger rail corridor leasing out freight operations. The Grand Rapids to Plymouth segment it’s purchased by any number of the other railroads.
WARNING MINDLESS SPECULATION FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY
Scenario 9.0 The entire line is jointly owned by CP and LSRC
Scenario 9.5 LSRC gets it from Plymouth to GR and CP gets it from GR to Porter (or vice-versa) with the other railroad running on trackage rights
Of all the railroads to pick up from Plymouth to Porter, I'd like to see LSRC take it but I'd have zero complaints if CP did instead or negotiated a sweet joint operation with the Class II.
- Saturnalia
- Authority on Cat
- Posts: 15463
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2011 7:54 pm
- Location: Michigan City, IN
- Contact:
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
The reason the trains aren't typically full when you see them is that you usually see them towards the far end of their runs. Watch them go by at Porter, and you'll see they're usually quite full.
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
Then it would be a complete waste of funding. The existence of I-96 eliminates any possibility of passenger service between Detroit and Grand Rapids.MrAnderson wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 2:03 pmOr they could restore passenger service in a future where rail gets the funding it deserves and it would be fantastic. Never say never.BL2-1843 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:03 pmHave lived in Howell in the same home trackside on the Plymouth Sub for 52 years come Nov 7th. Regular passenger train service left us due to Amtrak five months after we moved here. We don't need to see regular passenger train service return here EVER again, so this is all good news.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jimthias/
GRHC - you know every night I can imagine he is in front of his computer screen sitting in his underwear swearing profusely and drinking Blatz beer combing the RailRoadFan website for grammatical errors.
GRHC - you know every night I can imagine he is in front of his computer screen sitting in his underwear swearing profusely and drinking Blatz beer combing the RailRoadFan website for grammatical errors.
Re: Future of the Plymouth Sub/Grand Rapids Sub
I-94 exists yet we have service from Pontiac to Chicago. Don't get me wrong, I agree with your overall opinion but to say 96's existing is the reason isn't the whole storyJ T wrote: ↑Thu May 12, 2022 6:46 amThen it would be a complete waste of funding. The existence of I-96 eliminates any possibility of passenger service between Detroit and Grand Rapids.MrAnderson wrote: ↑Wed May 11, 2022 2:03 pmOr they could restore passenger service in a future where rail gets the funding it deserves and it would be fantastic. Never say never.BL2-1843 wrote: ↑Sat Apr 30, 2022 6:03 pmHave lived in Howell in the same home trackside on the Plymouth Sub for 52 years come Nov 7th. Regular passenger train service left us due to Amtrak five months after we moved here. We don't need to see regular passenger train service return here EVER again, so this is all good news.