Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Any historical questions can be posted here. Answers would certainly help as well :)
Man o' War
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:27 pm
Location: Mount Clemens, MI/Hawks Nest, WV

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Man o' War »

I don't understand. If you run the AML Chicago - Detroit - Toronto via Port Huron, you maintain every single major stop on the AML and could add Mount Clemens, Richmond, Port Huron and Sarnia. I think that would account for a substantial ridership increase. As far as transit time, yes it may be a longer routing, but not really by much and probably not enough to rattle the riders. I don't think many Eastsiders want to drive to Dearborn to catch a train to Toronto when they could drive to MC or PH. You might hear from some Detroiters as well when they learn that the Chicago - Toronto train via Detroit does not stop in Detroit! I'll stick with my current thinking and routing...

Man o' War

User avatar
Ypsi
The Bestest Railroadfan... fan
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:13 pm

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Ypsi »

Port Huron accounted for just .2% of Michigan ridership in 2018. The Mount Clemens sub would be hypothetical since they do not have service. It would add at least 1.5-2 hours each way to transit. Which makes it less competitive than crossing the boarder and catching Via if you’re using the more populated route.

The reason I said DER is because when I listed MC it was rightfully questioned. Realistically it’s likely still faster in total travel time for an east sider to hop 94 and get to DER rather than go up the mount Clemens sub then turn right into Canada at port Huron. Not to mention the DER parking is plentiful and more secure than the current Detroit parking.

In terms of timing, if you consider where the people actually ride form, which is statistically, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Dearborn, it’s not worth the extra transit for .2%. ARB, KAL, and DER accounted for 41.8% of total Michigan ridership in 2018. The international trains traditionally don’t make that many stops in Canada, so you don’t really need to worry about ridership over there. Statically there is likely not enough need to route north for the extra time. If you wanted to be competitive with flying or driving you need to be as close to the transit times of Amtrak to Detroit plus Windsor to Toronto as possible.

Source for ridership: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... IGAN18.pdf
"Ann Arbor 2373 Calling... Milkshake. Over"

All Aboard Amtrak: Northbound, Southbound, and My Hometown

Man o' War
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:27 pm
Location: Mount Clemens, MI/Hawks Nest, WV

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Man o' War »

Ypsi wrote:
Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:28 am
Port Huron accounted for just .2% of Michigan ridership in 2018. The Mount Clemens sub would be hypothetical since they do not have service. It would add at least 1.5-2 hours each way to transit. Which makes it less competitive than crossing the boarder and catching Via if you’re using the more populated route.

The reason I said DER is because when I listed MC it was rightfully questioned. Realistically it’s likely still faster in total travel time for an east sider to hop 94 and get to DER rather than go up the mount Clemens sub then turn right into Canada at port Huron. Not to mention the DER parking is plentiful and more secure than the current Detroit parking.

In terms of timing, if you consider where the people actually ride form, which is statistically, Ann Arbor, Kalamazoo, and Dearborn, it’s not worth the extra transit for .2%. ARB, KAL, and DER accounted for 41.8% of total Michigan ridership in 2018. The international trains traditionally don’t make that many stops in Canada, so you don’t really need to worry about ridership over there. Statically there is likely not enough need to route north for the extra time. If you wanted to be competitive with flying or driving you need to be as close to the transit times of Amtrak to Detroit plus Windsor to Toronto as possible.

Source for ridership: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/proj ... IGAN18.pdf
To be honest, virtually every stat that you recite here can be construed as hypothetical when considering rail service beyond the border. The .2% in PH means little as we really do not have a solid idea as to how that could or would change for people boarding in that town intending only to head east. The purpose and goal of any good rail planner is to add service - not duplicate it - hence additional stops along highly populated areas near the CN MTC sub would justify the consideration. You can throw travel time out the window as well. Face it, anyone riding a train from Chicago to Toronto can't be too concerned with time. Lets see, I can fly (1 hr and 40 min), or take the train (8 - 10 hrs - depending on what mood NS is in between Porter and CUS). Same holds for Detroit to Toronto - fly, drive or rail ? Rail will never be truly time competitive with air or roads outside of the NEC. As a long time commuter between BWI and Manhattan, I can tell you that even that was often a crap shoot. I think you are finding the dynamics here with regard to patronage and time to be a tad elusive. And if you really have time to kill as a rider, consideration would have to be given to LD connections at CUS and the percentage of through passengers generated which could negate the lower ridership at new or smaller stations. Lot to digest here, especially for a service that, at best, is a long way off...

Man o' War

User avatar
M.D.Bentley
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 2473
Joined: Sat May 07, 2005 4:41 pm
Location: Downriver

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by M.D.Bentley »

Forget all that stuff ! GOING back into to SUPER HYPER LOCKDOWN. Have a great day ! Until they put a mask on that too.

User avatar
Ypsi
The Bestest Railroadfan... fan
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:13 pm

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Ypsi »

Man o' War wrote:
Tue Aug 10, 2021 1:43 pm

To be honest, virtually every stat that you recite here can be construed as hypothetical when considering rail service beyond the border.
That’s not true, and this is more of an opinion that an actual statistic evidence. Statistics are statistics, and if you look at population data of the Amtrak stops, Ann Arbor is #6 in the state, Kalamazoo is #13, and Dearborn is #8. Port Huron comes in at #39. The only other relevant blue water station in the mix is landing (east lansing is 26 FWIW) which is #5. Detroit is #1. The population data backs up the ridership data, which would give a decent assertion that the ridership is not worth it. The only city in the top 50 that is close to the Mount Clemens sub is warren, and warren is a 20 min drive from Detroit Amtrak. Mount Clemens is 25 mins. Every other notable population center is closer to Detroit/ Dearborn. Nothing really north of Mount Clemens worth extending service.

CN MTC sub would justify the consideration. You can throw travel time out the window as well. Face it, anyone riding a train from Chicago to Toronto can't be too concerned with time.
This is not true. The state has spent millions of dollars to save minutes of travel time. Travel time matters. I can take a train from ARB to Chicago and be downtown in 4 hours 32 minutes. Door to downtown is just under 5 hours (I live 15 mins from the station and would arrive 10-15 before train time). If I flew at 7am I would leave my house (25 mins from the airport) at 5 am (which is shorter than most airlines recommend for TSA time) take off at 7, have a 1 hour 23 min flight (per delta), land/ taxi for say 20 mins, walk through the airport for 20-30 mins, take a blue line to Chicago then walk to union station which according to Google is 58 mins. And I’ve gone door to union station in about 5 hours. Plus parking at the airport and the higher price of air travel. At the current time tables for most people within range of metro, the train is close to the time it would take door to the same location flying.

Lets see, I can fly (1 hr and 40 min), or take the train (8 - 10 hrs - depending on what mood NS is in between Porter and CUS).
This under estimates total time invested flying. This is also why on my fictional TT was overnight.
Same holds for Detroit to Toronto - fly, drive or rail ? Rail will never be truly time competitive with air or roads outside of the NEC.
Similar to the DTW to ORD example, but via advertises to this on the Windsor corridor. Showing total estimated travel from Windsor to Toronto and the level of productivity flying/ driving/ train.

And if you really have time to kill as a rider, consideration would have to be given to LD connections at CUS and the percentage of through passengers generated which could negate the lower ridership at new or smaller stations.
The LD riders are part of the stats.. this statement does not make much sense as almost all corridor trains are built to connect with the LD trains and be connected to from. All three Michigan trains now do make these connections (during covid TT they did not necessarily)

As a note, I’m not here to be a jerk or start a fight. I believe this is a good discussion about a service we will likely never see :lol:

Sources:
https://worldpopulationreview.com/state ... s/michigan
https://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1 ... t_blue.pdf
https://www.google.com/maps
https://www.viarail.ca/sites/all/files/ ... etable.pdf
https://www.amtrak.com/home.html
https://www.delta.com/
"Ann Arbor 2373 Calling... Milkshake. Over"

All Aboard Amtrak: Northbound, Southbound, and My Hometown

Man o' War
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:27 pm
Location: Mount Clemens, MI/Hawks Nest, WV

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Man o' War »

Well, it is abundantly clear that you are totally misled by everything that I am trying to point out in the most simplistic of explanations. That you have missed the point, entirely, is puzzling. People can list statistical websites until they are blue in the face, and most are meaningless. To quote Mark Twain, "there are three kinds of lies - lies, darn lies and statistics". You could fill ten legal pads with the mis-information on some of those sites, and yet people use it to try and make valid points. Again, I'll stick with my plan and routing. If it should turn out otherwise, I'll look forward to riding your 10 hour Rail-Hound between Chicago and Toronto via Dearborn and MC depot!

Man o' War

User avatar
Ypsi
The Bestest Railroadfan... fan
Posts: 5510
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2010 2:13 pm

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Ypsi »

Man o' War wrote:
Tue Aug 10, 2021 7:24 pm
Well, it is abundantly clear that you are totally misled by everything that I am trying to point out in the most simplistic of explanations. That you have missed the point, entirely, is puzzling. People can list statistical websites until they are blue in the face, and most are meaningless. To quote Mark Twain, "there are three kinds of lies - lies, darn lies and statistics". You could fill ten legal pads with the mis-information on some of those sites, and yet people use it to try and make valid points. Again, I'll stick with my plan and routing. If it should turn out otherwise, I'll look forward to riding your 10 hour Rail-Hound between Chicago and Toronto via Dearborn and MC depot!

Man o' War
You ignored many variables including grossly underestimating travel time for flying. You also failed to show any data for how the cities north of Detroit would even be worth extending rail travel to. Statics don't lie. They can be manipulated, but here I use raw population and ridership data to show correlation. There is a reason the AML has 3 round trips and the blue water has 1.

When looking at station stops and population data, they are heavily correlated. And to just basically say there are large population centers that would benefit from 2 hours of additional travel time to go to Port Huron without backing it up does not make a case for the addition of route miles (that CN probably doesn't want anyway) or time. Any population center of note north or East of Detroit is within a reasonable drive to an existing Amtrak station, and would not justify the service to get the already low numbers that ride past Detroit (or let's face it Dearborn).

You can say I don't get it, but if it was that simple, I think I would, or at a minimum you could provide data or facts to back your claims rather than taking you ball and going home.
"Ann Arbor 2373 Calling... Milkshake. Over"

All Aboard Amtrak: Northbound, Southbound, and My Hometown

Man o' War
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:27 pm
Location: Mount Clemens, MI/Hawks Nest, WV

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Man o' War »

Now you're being silly. I recommend going back to your statistical drawing board and imaginary TT's and maybe consider an online course in logistics. Not trying to be rude or funny - like a broken record, you're stating basic railfan stats that I've heard for the last 30 years regarding Amtrak ridership in Michigan, and a complete inability to comprehend an alternative route possibility because it does not fit well into your statistical realm. I'm bored by statistical meanderings, but invigorated by new ideas that supercede worthless studies - often bureaucratic time and money wasters. You are good at quoting stats though, even if they are, to me, somewhat dubious. Seems as though this thread has reached a uneventful conclusion, but I'm betting the house that there will be at least one more post. Time for a cigar and a Yuengling down at the depot. Have a good evening...

Man o' War

ConrailDetr​oit
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Apr 29, 2007 10:04 pm
Location: Detroit

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by ConrailDetr​oit »

M.D.Bentley wrote:
Tue Aug 10, 2021 4:29 pm
Forget all that stuff ! GOING back into to SUPER HYPER LOCKDOWN. Have a great day ! Until they put a mask on that too.
Eliminating the passenger trains and building more highways, airports, and parking lots solves the problem.

Every commuter driving their own vehicle promotes social distancing instead of being packed together in a passenger car where viruses would spread easier. And each driver can wear their face covering to block out as much fresh air and oxygen as they can while maintaining as much CO2 as they can.

If one does want to get somewhere in the fastest manner, they can always fly in a plane full of passengers with their faces covered where nothing surely spreads in such tight quarters, or since faster than a train, the likelihood of spreading something per mile traveled decreases.

User avatar
ns8401
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 3988
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 1:57 pm
Location: Chicago, IL/Ann Arbor MI
Contact:

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by ns8401 »

Man o' War wrote:
Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:53 pm
Now you're being silly. I recommend going back to your statistical drawing board and imaginary TT's and maybe consider an online course in logistics. Not trying to be rude or funny - like a broken record, you're stating basic railfan stats that I've heard for the last 30 years regarding Amtrak ridership in Michigan, and a complete inability to comprehend an alternative route possibility because it does not fit well into your statistical realm. I'm bored by statistical meanderings, but invigorated by new ideas that supercede worthless studies - often bureaucratic time and money wasters. You are good at quoting stats though, even if they are, to me, somewhat dubious. Seems as though this thread has reached a uneventful conclusion, but I'm betting the house that there will be at least one more post. Time for a cigar and a Yuengling down at the depot. Have a good evening...

Man o' War
I’ll bite… routing up the east side to Port Huron wouldn’t draw the ridership to justify the new infrastructure. There’s no public transit over there for a reason. Putting it a stones throw from downtown Detroit and using that as a central hub the way the rest of the world does it makes way more sense than stops in the middle of no place on the way to nowhere to connect to a mainline to somewhere. And I didn’t even need a statistic to figure that out.

Then we can start on CN laughing at letting Amtrak run there.
Celebrating Over 3800 Posts in HD
This updated Signature Brought To YOU By The One The Only MQT3001!
NS8401, Online, At Trackside And On Your Side

GP30M4216
Saver of all History
Posts: 4802
Joined: Wed Oct 27, 2004 10:35 pm
Location: Feel the Zeel, MI
Contact:

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by GP30M4216 »

I’ve been watching old videos of Amtrak trains in Michigan and I’ve found clips of the international. I’ve been wondering, when the train crosses into the US with Via Rail power, does it keep the VR power all the way to Chicago with Amtrak operating it or is it taken off somewhere?
Back to the original question at hand....originally, when the International began cross-border service, I believe both Amtrak and Via furnished an equipment set. Amtrak used an F40 and Amfleet consist, while Via provided an LRC locomotive and Tempo cars. I think I've seen photos with LRC cars, too, but they originally were equipped with tilting technology and were incompatable with every other type of Via and Amtrak equipment. The Tempo cars were not great in the weather and I think Amtrak's Chicago yard crews struggled with the LRC equipment (including the locomotives) and by the late 1980s the operation had been generally standardized to a Via Rail F40 (easily compatible with Amtrak F40s serviced there) and Amfleet/Horizon single level Amtrak equipment. This provided for a unique opportunity to see equipment from the two companies running together.
Via 6442 Lansing FB.jpg
Here's the eastbound International at East Lansing in May 1994.

This continued after the opening of the new CN St. Clair River Tunnel, but the equipment was often switched to Hi-Level/Superliner consists with the addition of higher tunnel clearance. When the ITCS signalling system was activated over the Amtrak Michigan Line, Via opted not to equip their locomotives for this service, and Amtrak locomotives with ITCS equipment were used, resulting in an all-Amtrak consist. This remained the standard through the end of the International era in April of 2004, typically operating with 3-4 Superliners but occasionally with single level cars in their place during warmer months:
Image
Image

User avatar
SD80MAC
Ingersoll's Mr. Michigan
Posts: 10431
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:59 pm
Location: Grand Rapids

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by SD80MAC »

Man o' War wrote:
Tue Aug 10, 2021 8:53 pm
Now you're being silly. I recommend going back to your statistical drawing board and imaginary TT's and maybe consider an online course in logistics. Not trying to be rude or funny - like a broken record, you're stating basic railfan stats that I've heard for the last 30 years regarding Amtrak ridership in Michigan, and a complete inability to comprehend an alternative route possibility because it does not fit well into your statistical realm. I'm bored by statistical meanderings, but invigorated by new ideas that supercede worthless studies - often bureaucratic time and money wasters. You are good at quoting stats though, even if they are, to me, somewhat dubious. Seems as though this thread has reached a uneventful conclusion, but I'm betting the house that there will be at least one more post. Time for a cigar and a Yuengling down at the depot. Have a good evening...

Man o' War
Ypsi's comments and observations are grounded in reality with real world data to back them up. You, on the other hand, are in dream land, citing what-ifs and maybes. Take off your rose-colored railfan glasses and take a closer look. This is all a moot-point anyway, this train is never coming back.

As for the International, check out Dan Cluley's videos from the late 80s and early 90s. It seems like back then the consist was almost always a VIA F40 with LRC coaches.
"Remember, 4 mph is a couple, 5's a collision!"
http://flickriver.com/photos/conrail680 ... teresting/
Image

Man o' War
Railroadfan...fan
Posts: 1623
Joined: Fri Jan 12, 2018 5:27 pm
Location: Mount Clemens, MI/Hawks Nest, WV

Re: Amtrak/Via Rail’s international

Unread post by Man o' War »

SD80MAC wrote:
Wed Aug 11, 2021 9:37 am

Ypsi's comments and observations are grounded in reality with real world data to back them up. You, on the other hand, are in dream land, citing what-ifs and maybes. Take off your rose-colored railfan glasses and take a closer look. This is all a moot-point anyway, this train is never coming back.

As for the International, check out Dan Cluley's videos from the late 80s and early 90s. It seems like back then the consist was almost always a VIA F40 with LRC coaches.
Of course it's all "what-ifs and maybes". If you go back to my original post, I stated why I thought the Detroit -Sarnia route would be an interesting alternative, and Ypsi stated why he thought it wouldn't be. Simply imagining what a new International might look like on a railfan forum - he stated stats, I stated personal thoughts. That's about all there is to it, so little need to be defensive. Why don't you think the train will ever return? Continued border issues, or logistical problems - or simply not necessary? Curious as to your thoughts here.

Man o' War

Post Reply