[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by canudigit

I'm kind of curious if the benefit would outweigh the cost. Unless someone is just planning to hang around downtown Traverse City or Petoskey then they would either need a car or have to Uber everywhere. Would the cost of train fare and a rental car or Uber be worth avoiding a four hour drive in your own car? It wouldn't be worth it for me, because when we go up there we want to see more than just the city and having our own car would be cheaper and easier than a rental car or Uber. We do take Amtrak to Chicago from time to time, but that's completely different, you can spend days just in downtown Chicago without needing a car.

I think a large part of why the cities along the line are for it is that they very much want visitors to hang out around the downtowns some of which are quite cute and to spend a bit of money patronizing the businesses, and some of these downtowns are real damn cute. There is actually fairly robust mass transit in the Traverse City and Ann Arbor areas, though I don't know about other spots. You can also potentially be biking or visiting people who live in the area and supposedly would have a car. Along with people who opt for the train for fun or novelty or trying to avoid driving for whatever reason, another thing to consider is people who cannot drive or do not have a car. This might be particularly relevant due to two very sizable colleges along the route.

Originally Posted by DTWflyer

The fact there is existing, operational track is the only way this even becomes even potentially feasible.
MDOT owns the track. There are very few trains that use the track northward of Alma. Maybe a train a week at best up to service some industries and lumber yards between Alma and Cadillac. The track from Cadillac up to Traverse City and Petoskey is used very, very, infrequently.

The Steam Railroad Institute (SRI) in Owosso would periodically run sight-seeing / leaf color trains that departed Owosso and went up to Petoskey. These were special one-off trips a few times a year.

I question the value and utility of the train service for the reasons mentioned above.
The other two problems are:
1) traveling with gear - when people go up north they often take a lot of recreational gear & equipment. Bikes, kayaks, camping gear, ORVs, etc. Not to mention needing clothing to cover all 4 seasons, even in the middle of summer. Stuff that doesn't travel well via train

2) The last mile. People still need to get to their end destination, whether that be hotels, STRS, cabins, or family vacation properties in other locations on lakes, etc. You would still need someone to pick you up. Northern Michigan, unless saying put exactly in the downtown area of the destination cities heavily relies upon an automobile to get around. Ride-share is far and few between in many areas in Northern Michigan.

Not sure I see this more than periodic excursion trips.

Originally Posted by FrozenI69

Not a terribly useful line. What would be of major benefit is a train line connecting Detroit to Cleveland and Pittsburgh. This might actually have some demand since there is business travel between the 3 and a intercity train to Cleveland and Pittsburgh downtown would be able to connect with the bus and light rail systems. Certainly beats driving through Ohio in lake effect snow.
I’d rather vacation up north with my car. I prefer not to have the stress of driving in downtown or crowded interstate in heavy snow though, and that’s where a train makes sense.

I agree with the two of you that there are more useful lines in the US to bring about. However, part of the value proposition isn't just how much utility you get out of it, and there are certainly lines that would yield far higher utility due to having larger populations along other lines, but also the cost. A large component of what makes this potentially a good value is that on the cost end the generally very expensive portions of purchasing right-of-ways or negotiating such with rail companies and installing track or tunnels and bridges aren't really a major component here. The right-of-way and tracks are, in what is a very rare thing in the US, publicly owned by the state. The tracks are there and in good condition. There's even two existing stations with connecting services to existing train services. I think for having all of that, this makes sense though I'm curious about what the rationale for not following the Wolverine from Ann Arbor on to at least Detroit is. Is it because they don't own and can't negotiate the Dearborn to Detroit stretch?

I agree with your Detroit/Toledo/Cleveland/Pittsburgh line. It'd be great and they should do it, but unfortunately neither Amtrak nor MDOT owns any of that track and would need to work at getting a slot. A twice daily roundtrip service that essentially follows the Capitol Limited up until Toledo where it goes to Detroit instead of west to Chicago would be fantastic. What would be the best though would be to have a solid preclearance operation and a transnational high-speed rail service that's Chicago-Detroit-Toronto. However, those all probably require fairly large commitments that would have to have a very large federal push and investment. Traverse City to Ann Arbor (and hopefully eventually to Dearborn and Detroit) does not require anywhere near as heavy of a lift and doing this doesn't preclude doing any of the heavy lifting needed for elsewhere.

[Republic of Michigan]

Too bad we can't have a high speed train like the TGV in France which travels 200 miles per hour. You can get up to Traverse City from Ann Arbor in 1.5 hours.

Pie in the sky would be 3 high speed lines:

1) Detroit - Ann Arbor - Howell - Durand - Owosso - Alma - Mt. Pleasant - Cadillac - Traverse City - Petoskey

2) Detroit - Dearborn - Ypsilanti - Ann Arbor - Jackson - Battle Creek - Kalamazoo - St. Joseph

3) Detroit - Ann Arbor - Lansing - Grand Rapids - Muskegon

[OyCrumbler]

Originally Posted by Republic of Michigan

Too bad we can't have a high speed train like the TGV in France which travels 200 miles per hour. You can get up to Traverse City from Ann Arbor in 1.5 hours.

Pie in the sky would be 3 high speed lines:

1) Detroit - Ann Arbor - Howell - Durand - Owosso - Alma - Mt. Pleasant - Cadillac - Traverse City - Petoskey

2) Detroit - Dearborn - Ypsilanti - Ann Arbor - Jackson - Battle Creek - Kalamazoo - St. Joseph

3) Detroit - Ann Arbor - Lansing - Grand Rapids - Muskegon

I think for the main trunk of Chicago to Detroit (and hopefully one day to Toronto), it'd be great to go that fast or even faster than 200 mph for express services with something like a local service with passing tracks at smaller stations. The *most* express service being probably Chicago - Kalamazoo - Ann Arbor - Detroit - Windsor - London - Hamilton - Toronto I think for other stretches, getting tracks to Class V (top speed 90 mph) should be a pretty good and attainable baseline goal for these other routes in Michigan as well as the US in general because the US does a lot of shared freight and passenger tracks. There are examples of that in the US for tracks that share freight and passenger traffic though there are higher top speeds for shared tracks in Germany, but that requires larger infrastructure and regulatory overhauls though there have been studies to effectively get freight trains safely, reliably and efficiently up to 106.5 mph or to max out at 125 mph.


Anyhow to quote myself for high-speed rail service in Michigan:

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Hi!

Yea, I think Wolverine service is pretty decent. Generally, high-speed rail and conventional rail have slightly different markets as high-speed rail is usually faster and has a higher price. It often appeals more to business travelers and certain tourists than it does to students or budget fare.

Definitely some stretches of the rail right-of-way itself can accommodate 160 mph in terms of its geometry. In many places, the main difference that occurs in upgrading to high-speed rail is simply the rail tracks are built to higher standards and continuously welded and the service electrified and meanwhile non-high speed rail trains also still run on the tracks. Germany does a lot of this mixed-traffic rail (they mix normal, high-speed, and freight!) and that runs fairly well, but the issue is that Germany's trains usually get a top speed of 186 mph / 300 kph rather than the much faster train lines that some other places run--though to be honest, if the Chicago to Detroit line is hitting 186 mph speeds on stretches, then that's still really quite good and amazing for US passenger rail.

I think the mixed rail system probably works for this case and it'd be that there'd still be "normal" speed rail running at 110 mph as it does now with the current stops on the line and high-speed rail running faster with fewer stops. This mixed rail also means that normal rail running on the same tracks for the track lengths that are shared, except for potentially passing sidings, will likely have a very smooth ride as a side benefit from high-speed rail being implemented--it could very well be that the trainsets and tracks are virtually the same for "normal" and high-speed rail service are the same with the only difference being skipped stops which may still mean that some "normal" services still hit high-speeds.

In regards to acceleration, for reference, the Japanese N700 trains go 0-60 mph in 37 seconds, holds that acceleration for the most part to its top speeds and those are over a decade old at this point and I believe have been beaten by several other sets in recent years. To 160 mph at those rates, it'd be about 99 seconds. Now, given that actually creating high-speed rail on this route will take a lot of political wrangling as well as actual construction time, it doesn't seem like it'd be ridiculous to have at least the acceleration of a trainset already over a decade old at this point.


In regards to potential stops, I'll take the Wolverine stops from Chicago to Detroit and list them and bold the ones that I think are definitely necessary and *italicize/star* the ones that might also make sense along with my own reasoning. Obviously, an actual study might differ.

Chicago
*Hammond* - last potential transfer point with Pere Marquette service if ever it stops here again
Michigan City
New Buffalo
*Niles* - Niles-Benton Harbor metropolitan area, potential transfer to Blue Water
Dowagiac
Kalamazoo - Currently second highest riderships among MI stations, college town with a sizable metropolitan population, potential transfer to Blue Water
*Battle Creek* - Sizable town and last potential transfer point to Blue Water service, near one of the more prominent bends on the route so would be slowing down anyways, one of the more heavily used stations in MI
Albion
Jackson
Ann Arbor - Massive college town with a thriving economy of its own and currently most heavily used station in MI
*Dearborn* - Last potential stop to transfer to current Wolverine service that goes on to Pontiac if high-speed rail service to downtown Detroit/across to Canada happens, currently third most used station in MI
Detroit - This would likely have to be with a new and potentially underground station in or closer to downtown in anticipation of crossing the river and to more centrally locate the station--also neither MDOT or Amtrak own the rails east of Dearborn so better to build and own.

Visually breaking this down:

Current Wolverine route from Chicago to Detroit:
Chicago
Hammond
Michigan City
New Buffalo
Niles
Dowagiac
Kalamazoo
Battle Creek
Albion
Jackson
Ann Arbor
Dearborn
Detroit

High-speed rail route with all the stops that might be reasonable as I see it:
Chicago
Hammond
Niles
Kalamazoo
Battle Creek
Ann Arbor
Dearborn
Detroit

High-speed rail route with fewest stops by my reasoning:
Chicago
Kalamazoo
Ann Arbor
Detroit

Using the same reference point for acceleration, the Nozomi service using the aforementioned N700 trains cover the 320 miles from Tokyo to Osaka in 2 hours and 22 minutes with six stops and with some more bends and much greater elevation differences than the Wolverine line does. The Wolverine tracks from Chicago to Detroit currently spans 271 miles which is significantly shorter and the rail stations for high-speed service I outlined potentially range from a low of four stops to a high of eight stops.

Originally Posted by OyCrumbler

Sorry about the long winding posts and the general obsessiveness everybody!

I still wanted to add one more thing. I actually think a Hammond stop for the high-speed rail (and the Niles one, too) especially if it’s mixed rail with normal Wolverine rail, even at relatively high speeds, and the limited stop high speed rail, isn’t optimal. Porter, Indiana, where the current public ownership of track stops west to Chicago, should be, in my opinion, where a stop is instead due to both ownership and because it’s where multiple tracks meet with the commuter rail South Shore Line service, Wolverine/Blue Water, and the Pere Marquette tracks all meeting there. That should be built into an integrated transfer station for all of these and the limited-stop high-speed rail service.

[2nd trick op]

Originally Posted by Republic of Michigan

Too bad we can't have a high speed train like the TGV in France which travels 200 miles per hour. You can get up to Traverse City from Ann Arbor in 1.5 hours.

Pie in the sky would be 3 high speed lines:

1) Detroit - Ann Arbor - Howell - Durand - Owosso - Alma - Mt. Pleasant - Cadillac - Traverse City - Petoskey

2) Detroit - Dearborn - Ypsilanti - Ann Arbor - Jackson - Battle Creek - Kalamazoo - St. Joseph

3) Detroit - Ann Arbor - Lansing - Grand Rapids - Muskegon

A little history lesson and commentary (from a lifelong railroad buff and former railroader):

Up until the late Fifties, The Pennsylvania and New York Central both offered passenger service to the northernmost portions of the Lower Peninsula. Mackinaw City was the terminus for both carriers, and those seeking to go to Duluth, Minneapolis, or the Pacific Northwest could cross over to the Upper Peninsula on the state's ferry system, and continue west via the Duluth, South Shore and Atlantic. A great deal of freight was also handled, via an ancient steam-powered ferryboat called the Chief Wawatam.

The trains involved connected with the much heavier east-west service on the main lines of the two competitors, and there's a pretty good chance that Pullman service (board upstate, and sleep in a berth in a car that connected to a through train and went on to some other city) was offered in the peak years of the Twenties.

All this was economically justifiable because in those days, people vacationing in a hotel or cabin upstate usually thought twice before taking the family car on a round-trip journey of 500 miles or more on the primitive roads of the day. But it all changed with the construction of the Interstate Highway System and the Mackinac Bridge. Continuing improvements in the reliability of the personal auto also didn't strengthen the railroads' ability to compete.

And rail passenger service wasn't the only facet of the transportation market affected by changing technology. The freight was still there, although composed more of low-paying commodities moving in bulk on larger cars, and on longer. heavier, but less frequent trains. Since, to quote one wag, "the train hauls more cars than the ferry's bellycan", more and more freight between Michigan and Wisconsin / Minnesota was either diverted via Chicago, or lost to trucking. One by one, the four ferry routes between Ludington, MI and various Wisconsin ports were abandoned, and at the Straits, the Chief Wawatam continued to delight railroad and steam-power buffs only until repair costs became too great in the mid Seventies.

So I wouldn't count on Amtrak, (which is "temporarily" cutting back on long-distance and "corridor" service due to declining patronage in the wake of the COVID scare) showing much enthusiasm for a new service linking a college-centered community with a mostly-summer-season vacation spot.

[FrozenI69]

I certainly wouldn’t mind a fall color excursion train in September & October on this route though . Great revenue generator for tourism. Give it a few sleeper cars too, so that guests can get a good night rest after a day of fall color hiking up north.