Amtrak Michigan: Wolverine, Blue Water, Pere Marquette

Mr. Stephens, at this earlier (and now again sorrowfully related) topic, we established that CP does have trackage rights over NS inMichigan, but their routing is via Water Level Route (ex NYC route of the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore) to Toledo, thence to Detroit. Through Conrail Shared Assets, CP has access to any auto related industry - and that's the traffic of sought by any road.

We also established that the food processing industries at Battle Creek (i.e. Tony the Tiger) are primarily served by the CN.

In short, the Michigan Central is simply non essential property to the NS; I'm not aware of anything that has "derailed' the pending sale of the line to the State , and I'm confident that "long term", this matter will be addressed. Again from having ridden two "sold" trains this past weekend and noting the passengers are "young pre-lifers" who will make discretionary choices when confronted with $5ga. This Corridor represents a market with good growth potential.

Agreed Mr. Norman that the NS line is practically non essential to the freights or NS would not be willing to "dump" it off to the state of MI, My question to all still remains what does NS receive from downgrading the current track speed indefinitely? Is this a negotiation tactic brought on by NS to make sure the state of MI does not back out of the sale otherwise expect the track condition to remain sub-par if NS remains in control? Also who will be on top of maintenance after said sale?

I have not been a passenger on "zig-zag" Detroit line in quite some time, or the Blue water line since its renaming, The ride is quite Blue however water the more-so aqua colored. I'm an "International" rail fan not so taken with new aqua water run. Agreed though, With gas prices rising pass the $4 ga mark (again) the masses will begin to look for all means of alternative transportation, which all MI Amtrak lines could benefit from.

on a side note thank you Mr. Norman for your recap of the Symphony ordeal.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Mr. Stephens, at this earlier (and now again sorrowfully related) topic, we established that CP does have trackage rights over NS inMichigan, but their routing is via Water Level Route (ex NYC route of the Capitol Limited and Lake Shore) to Toledo, thence to Detroit. Through Conrail Shared Assets, CP has access to any auto related industry - and that's the traffic of sought by any road.

We also established that the food processing industries at Battle Creek (i.e. Tony the Tiger) are primarily served by the CN.

In short, the Michigan Central is simply non essential property to the NS; I'm not aware of anything that has "derailed' the pending sale of the line to the State , and I'm confident that "long term", this matter will be addressed. Again from having ridden two "sold" trains this past weekend and noting the passengers are "young pre-lifers" who will make discretionary choices when confronted with $5ga. This Corridor represents a market with good growth potential.

I should have been clearer, Mr. Norman - I'd meant that this line would be a good option for CP run-through freight bound from Chicago to Canada and return, rather than for CP service of online industry of which there seems to be little. In fact, it seems that a CP move to the Michigan Central would benefit NS (less traffic on the overloaded Water Level Route), Amtrak/Michigan (trackage fees) and CP (more reliable and faster schedules Windsor-Porter.)

In regards to the Norfolk Southern decision to downgrade the MC, I believe it was motivated by policy rather than maintenance. Tactically, it makes good business sense to get an unproductive line off of their hands, while keeping access. Strategically, I wonder whether this is part of the opening salvo of concerted freight railroad action against Amtrak, along with the AAR suit and the Santa Fe line discussions with BNSF.

However, in terms of passenger service, this line (once the purchase finally goes through) represents a coup for Amtrak, and a chance to show the potential of off-corridor passenger rail. I'm hoping that Amtrak and VIA also make a commitment to fast cross-border rail travel once the purchase is complete, by the use of a minibus between New Center and Walkerville.

mtuandrew wrote:I should have been clearer, Mr. Norman - I'd meant that this line would be a good option for CP run-through freight bound from Chicago to Canada and return, rather than for CP service of online industry of which there seems to be little. In fact, it seems that a CP move to the Michigan Central would benefit NS (less traffic on the overloaded Water Level Route), Amtrak/Michigan (trackage fees) and CP (more reliable and faster schedules Windsor-Porter.)

In regards to the Norfolk Southern decision to downgrade the MC, I believe it was motivated by policy rather than maintenance. Tactically, it makes good business sense to get an unproductive line off of their hands, while keeping access. Strategically, I wonder whether this is part of the opening salvo of concerted freight railroad action against Amtrak, along with the AAR suit and the Santa Fe line discussions with BNSF.

However, in terms of passenger service, this line (once the purchase finally goes through) represents a coup for Amtrak, and a chance to show the potential of off-corridor passenger rail. I'm hoping that Amtrak and VIA also make a commitment to fast cross-border rail travel once the purchase is complete, by the use of a minibus between New Center and Walkerville.

IIRC, Amtrak limited freights on the MC between Kalamazoo and Porter to 4-axle locos. Unless that's changed, amount/types of freight that could be run over the MC is limited, especially given the predominance of 6-axle these days (those in the know about CP motive power may be able to shed more light on what type of locos CP runs on its Chicago-bound trains).

What's the rationale behind limiting to four axle locomotives instead of six?

Paulus Magnus wrote:What's the rationale behind limiting to four axle locomotives instead of six?

Six-axle trucks have a much longer wheelbase than four-axle, and greatly increase rail wear on curvy rail lines. This doesn't apply when the trucks have steerable axles, but CP's fleet of SD40-2s, SD60s, and most of their GEVOs have standard non-steerable trucks.

I'm surprised Amtrak has bothered to ban them on this segment though. It certainly isn't entirely tangent, but doesn't seem to have many curves that would be excessively worn by six-axle trucks. Is it an FRA recommendation for 110 mph speeds?

Whatever the case, I guess there won't be any SDP40Fs running here anytime soon

CP Rail runs almost exclusively big GEs on their Detroit-Chicago freights, and before that, ran mostly Soo SD40's.

If you watch the limited freight action on the Amtrak(Ex-MC) line, the biggest power you'll see is a CSS GP38 or NS GP40, with one exception. Last year's rail train had a SD70ACe on the point. That being a non-revenue move, maybe there was some type of special exception made.


This is that rail train sitting just north of Michigan City's swing bridge off US-12.
http://inlinethumb37.webshots.com/47140 ... 600Q85.jpg

Regarding the latest episode of "As The Michigan Central Turns", enquiring mind wants to know:

1) Is the sale of the line East of K'Zoo still pending, or has it been "snagged' beyond any reasonably expected in a transaction of this nature and scope?

2) Wasn't there an inspection made immediately prior to the parties "shaking hands", i.e. an agreement in principle was in place, and weren't "same degree of utility" provisions negotiated, i.e. the selling party wasn't going to let the line "go to pot' while the transaction closed?

3) Now I know I'm hardly as enthusiastic as some of our younger members here appear to be, but I have had a lot of experience over the years riding trains on three continents. I think I'd know bad track when I "felt" it, and from my rides on 352(9) and 353(10) on the "eve" of the announced slow orders, I felt none and that both trains moved along at track speed (only exception, a slow order West of New Buffalo on Amtrak's own 110mph line). They both lost time "over the road", but that appeared to be from heavy passenger loadings and that only two traps were open (as should have been the case) at any station.

4) How could the selling party's interest be enhanced by letting the line "go to pot" with a pending deal on the table?

5) How could the Buyer's interests be enhanced from same, did the buyer, an agency of the State of Michigan, not have budget for maintenance or did they expect to "go and sob" to the Legislature for such? If that the case, shame on them; their competency must be questioned (you know "competent parties' doctrine of any contract).

All told, it appears that somebody dropped the ball on what appears to be a positive development to enhance rail passenger service in a strong Midwest Corridor market. Somehow, I think somebody will be standing before Judge Judy by the time this one plays out.

I'm surprised this line requires much maintenance. The freight traffic is fairly light, with only locals and on-line traffic. All bridge traffic runs downriver to the NS water level route from Detroit. I'm not sure how much maintenance that requires at that traffic level - obviously maintenance is somewhat a function of the beating given to the track.

Annuled Pontiac to Dearborn: http://www.freep.com/article/20120324/N ... NTPAGE%7Cs

Effective Monday, Amtrak said, the morning eastbound Wolverine train from Chicago will end in Dearborn rather than in Pontiac. And the evening westbound Wolverine train will begin in Dearborn rather than in Pontiac.

A review of the website shows that no alternate transportation Dearborn-Pontiac is being offered. Since the equipment assigned to 350 makes a same day turn for 355, it would be impossible to have same operate to Pontiac and have the equipment turned for a same return. To continue to do so would require an additional set and would also require an additional Train, Engine, and OBS crew (throw in some lodging at Pontiac as well).

I have an upcoming trip to Detroit April 20 and 21 for a Detroit Symphony concert; I'll be looking down at the Wolverine from a "flightseeing" seat (way aft window) on a GoJet (United) Bombardier. As soon as I learned of the 90 minute delay from the speed restrictions, I rang up the United site and booked the KORD-KDTW-KORD flights. 350 (20) would have been the train I would have used for the Eastward trip.

Amtrak put out a press release on the schedule changes for the Wolverine and Blue Water service: http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServe ... Update.pdf

Some excerpts from the press release on the track repair plans:
"MDOT and NS are in talks to start repairs during the second week of April, to be complete by the end of that month."

"On or before the end of next week (March 30), Amtrak and MDOT intend to have more information for passengers who are planning to travel in April. NS is preparing to make repairs to its tracks, starting early in that month. More schedule changes will be made by Amtrak to preserve as much service as possible while NS crews expedite repairs to be complete before the end of the semesters at colleges and universities along the route and in advance of the summer travel season."

I definitely have the impression that there is "more than meets the eye". Some of the signs may indicate disagreement within NS at a relatively senior level over how to handle operations and support of the line in the period leading up to the transfer to MIDOT ownership.

In all certanty the case, Mr. O'Keefe.

Any of our barristers around here know to what extent "degree of utility" provisions within a contract for the sale of property are enforcable. To this "non-lawyer", my experience "over the years" suggests they are quite enforcable. Again as I noted earlier, if either party, especially the buyer, failed to address enforcable "degree of utility' provisions, shame on them.

All told, while it appears there is a plan in place to immediately address these "deferred maintenance" issues, many passengers on this strong Midwest Corridor route that includes a ridership base that I believe is using Amtrak by choice and not by default will be inconvenienced and choose not to return. I myself am one of such; at least for the noted upcoming trip next month.

There is alternate transportation available...by means of the horrendously unreliable DDOT bus 37 to Detroit, then the 55-450 combo for service to Pontiac.