Where should there be frequent corridor service?

gokeefe wrote:IDetroit (MCS) - Buffalo (via Canada).

Sounds like a VIA service.

I agree with most of that, WesternNation, but keep the Pere Marquette where it is, with a crossover north of Michigan City between CSX and Amtrak/MCRR.

Also, I’m thinking Toledo-Detroit-Flint-Bay City needs to happen. I like the idea of a northern train, but a lot of work needs to happen before you can get a round-trip train between Detroit/Ann Arbor and Traverse within a day.

And while you’re at it, CHI-MKE-GBY-ESC-MQT.

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

gokeefe wrote:IDetroit (MCS) - Buffalo (via Canada).

Sounds like a VIA service.

That is a very well made and taken point. Perhaps a "joint" service like the Maple Leaf.

gokeefe wrote:That is a very well made and taken point. Perhaps a "joint" service like the Maple Leaf.

How about DET-Windsor-Hamilton-(Toronto via GO Metrolinx guaranteed connection)-Niagara Falls-BUF? That would probably be a very popular VIA route to be honest, even Windsor-Hamilton-Niagara.

Maybe ... Regardless I think what Ford is doing along with their public statement regarding rail is clearly game changing. Everyone is going to be thinking about new possibilities now.

Twin Cities - Milwaukee - Chicago really stands out to me. Those cities could easily support two more round-trips per day. The Twin Cities metro population has grown ~40% in the last 30 years. That's pretty striking for a place so deep in the frost-belt.

This is probably the best suggestion made so far given the likely willingness of current agencies to fund additional service.

gokeefe wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:

gokeefe wrote:IDetroit (MCS) - Buffalo (via Canada).

Sounds like a VIA service.

That is a very well made and taken point. Perhaps a "joint" service like the Maple Leaf.

The only way I can see this working is a "sealed" train handling only through passengers from Detroit to Buffalo and v.v., or perhaps handling only local passengers between intermediate stations in Ontario; I can't imagine passengers going through two TSA experiences on the same trip. The Michigan Central managed all of that daily for years, but that was in the days of "how long will you be in Canada?" asked while en route. And maybe not even that for through passengers in designated cars?

Ridgefielder wrote:Twin Cities - Milwaukee - Chicago really stands out to me. Those cities could easily support two more round-trips per day. The Twin Cities metro population has grown ~40% in the last 30 years. That's pretty striking for a place so deep in the frost-belt.

gokeefe wrote:This is probably the best suggestion made so far given the likely willingness of current agencies to fund additional service.

If the DFL keeps the MN governorship, bank on an additional frequency within 4 years. If the WI governorship flips blue, within 3.

Completely agreed. Service enhancements in these areas are strictly based on political calculus.

Per Amtrak's schedules, it's 417 rail miles between Chicago and Minneapolis-St. Paul. The longest state subsidized train presently is the Carolinian at 704 rail miles. North Carolina provides all the subsidy, no other state joins in. Is Minnesota willing to pay the entire subsidy? Wisconsin is already paying the full subsidy for Hiawatha trains between Chicago and Milwaukee, don't expect it to join in and help subsidize another train to Minnesota.

Isn't this supposed to be about Frequent Corridor Service, and not just every wish-list for train service?.... Frequent implies multiple trips a day, which means you need thousands of people a week to ride.

When I see GRB-MNM-ESC-MQT suggested, that's just laughable. Combined, all of the counties along that route have a population of maybe 180,000. If 5% of everyone living there rode the train twice a year, you'd have around 50 riders a day, and that's extremely optimistic...

Ideally, a corridor should be bookended or punctuated by cities of 1M or greater and separated by ~200 miles or less (more out in the desert). Going on that basis and not the presence of existing rail, a few natural corridors emerge:

R-10W: LAX-ONT-PSP-PHX-TUS
R-11: PHX-KGM-LAS

R-65: CHI-IND-SDF-BNA-BHM
R-22: MEM-BHM-ATL
R-85: ATL-GSP-CLT-RDU
R-10C: SAT-HOU-BPT-MSY (SL)

R35S: SAT-AUS-FTW-OKC-TUL
R45: HOU-DAL-FTW

There's enough volume of traffic between these locations and transit times should be comparable to air or driving.

Sorry about CHI-MQT, it’s been on my wish list for years and I keep forgetting how tiny UP cities actually are. Regardless though, CHI-MKE-GBY via Appleton and Oshkosh should be a thing. Same for CHI-MKE-MAD.

What cities are BPT and MSY? Having trouble picking them out on the map. While we are in that corner of the world, what about connections to Corpus Christi from SAN and HOU? Also, let us know when the Santa Fe finally finishes their branch line over the Grand Canyon for KGM-LAS

There is always the possibility that Wisconsin and Minnesota could reach an agreement on sharing costs for the Hiawatha extension. That's not outside the realm of possibility at all if the political stars align.

Sharing costs on the Hiawatha is only one factor. The bigger issue is that CP doesn't want the additional trains. That's been a stumbling block on getting additional CHI-MKE frequencies, and I don't think BNSF is going to be any more receptive to hosting them, nor does UP want them on the mostly single-tracked Altoona & Adams Subs...

None of that has to do with who is in the Governor's mansion in STP or MSN.