thanks man!  you rock!  I kinda have a creative idea for a train station that I am working on.  This of course is a part of it.  Thanks.

You could do a lot worse as a model.  The T&OC Depot was designed by Frank Packard.  Too bad it doesn't sit on the 3-C corridor.  It's close, but would require a rather ungainly back-up move to use it for passenger service.

 

BTW: The Columbus Fireifghters Union bought the building a year ago and has done a great job both restoring it and putting on a addition that is very much in keeping with the rest of the structure.

 

 

Damn it!  A whole day wasted! 

Track layouts aside, what is the scheduling looking like?  Would trains travel between Cincinnati and Cleveland or turn around at Columbus, requiring a transfer?  How many trains per day?

 

I believe Greyhound runs about five busses per day between Cleveland & Cincinnati.  The times are scattered throughout the day and not centered around business morning and late afternoon travel. 

 

If the service is to be used by business and day travelers there would need to be bare minimum four trains in each direction (two morning departures, one around 5:30pm, one later around 7pm). 

 

Agreed, the speed of the trains is not as important as a variety of departure times. 

There would likely be four trainsets for a startup, which would allow for some flexibility in routings.  For instance, two trainsets could be scheduled as through trains with the remaining two running half of the 3-C with Columbus as the mid-point.  This would allow same-day travel all along the corridor.

That type of service pattern has been proposed before for 3-C -- meaning it's a pretty popular concept. I'm sure I have a timetable for that concept around here somewhere!

^What do noozer and KJP, the Sts. Peter and Paul of intercity Ohio rail, consider to be probably locations for a Cincy station?  Will Uncle Rando really have to go all the way out to Silverton to take the train to Cleveland?

Under a former plan  (back in the 90's), Sharonville was mentioned as stop.  But the ideal stop in Cincy is still Cincinnati Union Terminal, even with severe freight rail congestion in the adjacent Queensgate Yard. If the new 3-C study can suggest a way to releive that congestion, possibly by diverting some of the freight traffic or building a new intermodal yard at another location, that could create space for passenger trains.

 

CUT already handles Amtrak's "Cardinal"... of course on a schedule that runs on odd-numbered days, making it less convenient to ride.  Another impact of 3-C service may be to induce Amtrak to make the "Cardinal" a daily train and improve it's arrival/departure times to allow connections to 3-C trains.

 

Wouldn't it also be great to someday have a connection with streetcars at CUT?

Cincinnati Union Terminal is a beautiful building, but it's located some distance from the heart of downtown. Any idea if future plans for the streetcar call for a loop to CUT?

That type of service pattern has been proposed before for 3-C -- meaning it's a pretty popular concept. I'm sure I have a timetable for that concept around here somewhere!

 

I have it somewhere myself (since I wrote it way back when), but it was pretty simple:

 

1. A morning Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati train, with an afternoon return.

2. A morning Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland counter schedule, again with an afternoon return.

3. A morning Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati train, which then operates  as a midday Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus-Cleveland train, and then doubles back to Columbus in the evening.

4. A morning Columbus-Cleveland/midday Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati/evening Cincinnati-Dayton-Columbus train on a counter schedule from the train in item #3.

 

There would be three thru Cleveland-Cincinnati trains, plus the two Columbus-Cincinnati and Columbus-Cleveland short hauls. Thus, the each segment of the corridor would see four trains in each direction.

 

Under this proposal, all major cities have morning, midday, afternoon and evening departures, giving traveler a lot of flexibility. We would only need four sets of equipment, plus spares to run this service.

There is a passageway under CUT that was originally intended for use by streetcars as a passenger pickup/drop off area.

Sweet! Sounds like planners back in the day anticipated the rail-streetcar interface. Getting the streetcar to CUT would be (almost) a straight shot down Ezzard Charles. I find this exciting and frustrating because we already have many of the pieces in place. When do we start laying track? 

There is a passageway under CUT that was originally intended for use by streetcars as a passenger pickup/drop off area.

 

I don't think that's available any longer.

 

The possibility for the station would hinge on the plans for a new parking structure to the north of Union Terminal, it seems to me. There are drawings available in another thread that show the layout.

 

Cramer I believe you are correct.  From what I remember the streetcar entrances were built, including a pair of bridges over Dalton St., but streetcars never actually used them in the Terminal's short active life.  To use them today would mean taking out the exhibits in the building's two wings.  I don't see any reason why tracks couldn't march right up the middle and loop around the fountain, but it would probably be defeated on a fire lane technicality or something dumb like that. 

 

Here's the south streetcar bridge over Dalton St., there's an identical one on the north side:

 

I assume the six gaping holes (three on either side) were intended for surface transportation?  edit: I guess I have airports on my mind...last time I checked intercity trains were "surface transportation."  :)  I guess I meant "local transportation." 

 

What about the Cincinnati Transit Center?  That was supposed to handle commuter rail; was it ever intended to handle intercity traffic?

Cincinnati Union Terminal is a beautiful building, but it's located some distance from the heart of downtown. Any idea if future plans for the streetcar call for a loop to CUT?

 

It thought Cincinnati was looking at a downtown site for a new station to serve the 3-C and the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative Cincinnati-Chicago route?

All those images of Dayton Union Station...what we have lost! :cry:

\

 

Yeah, that interior shot... it looked like a cathedral!  Boy has our country been dumb...

I assume the six gaping holes (three on either side) were intended for surface transportation? 

 

One pair was for taxis, the second for buses, and the third (outside) for streetcars. 

 

 

>What about the Cincinnati Transit Center?  That was supposed to handle commuter rail; was it ever intended to handle intercity traffic?

 

That's right but it would require considerable capital expense to rebuild the track that used to extend north of Longworth Hall and then cross the parking lot between the Clay Wade Bailey Bridge and Central Ave.  The transit center was designed to accomodate intercity trains but will have to be heavily modified:

 

 

It also raises the problem of The Cardinal at Union Terminal and these intercity trains a mile or two away.   

 

 

    We all know that the "Seven Railroads of Cincinnati" along with the city got together and built Cincinnati Union Terminal as a consolidation of many passenger stations around town.

 

    In "The Railroad and the City" by Carl Condit, the author argues that the original configuration was actually superior, because all of the stations were closer to downtown.

 

   

I vaguely remember seeing that statement about the location of CUT previously. Thanks for the reference.

As I understand things, CUT was built with two main issues in mind: To elevate the terminal so that flooding would not be an issue (ironically, it WAS flooded in the 1930's) and to consolidate railroad operations, making them more efficient.

 

It IS a distance from downtown, and if it is to be used as a station for Ohio Hub trains, we will definitely want a streetcar connection to downtown proper. We will have to be sure stations in all of Ohio's cities are well connected to local transit.

 

Maybe a trolley could use the subway along Central Ave and then run at surface level to CUT? How far is that and what would it cost?

 

What an art-deco masterpiece CUT is! :clap:

Yep, an art deco masterpiece indeed!

...

...

...

>(ironically, it WAS flooded in the 1930's) and

 

No, actually it stayed in operation.  It took months if not over a year to move fill from "Bald Nob" (where Wildcat Storage is near the Western Hills Viaduct) to elevate the 16 station tracks.  During the 1937 flood both the C&O and Southern RR approaches remained open as did the west side C&O line, which rose on a bridge immediately north of the station.  The parking garage accessed through the Dalton St. Tunnel might have flooded, but that would have been the extent of it. 

 

 

All this is now a non-issue because of the flood walls and Mill Creek barrier dam.

assuming no new rolling stock and an elm/race alignment, you can get to union terminal for about 20 million, maybe less.

 

 

1.  It's not just a matter of speed, it's also about being able to use your travel time as you wish.  If you're traveling on business, the train gives you the advantage of using that time productively instead of trying to multi-task while driving..... which has already been well-established as a major contributor to traffic accidents.

 

2. As KJP pointed out so well, no nation has been able to built true HSR without first growing their conventional systems and gradually increasing speeds.  HSR also requires a didicated right-of-way, which no freight railroad is about to give up... at least not without great expense... leaving the only alternative to build entirely new right-of-way and having to acquire land through either purchase or eminent domain. The political battle alone would likely kill the effort.

 

3. HSR will happen in North America, but until we build a public awareness of what good passenger rail can be, the general public will never be able to wrap their minds around high-speed rail. Most of us on this forum are well aware of what true HSR is like, but the majority of Americans have never traveled overseas and seen HSR first-hand.

 

My point is that it needs to not only compete with the automobile, but flat out beat it in some regards.  If the total time-travel is a wash then rail wins because of the personal free-time one gains.  But if that is the case then it still needs to beat the automobile in some regard.  Maybe it needs to be cheaper than the cost of gas for the same automobile trip.  It just has to be something...I just don't think it is a good idea to go into this thinking that people are going to immediately flock to this 3c corridor without having a reason to first.

 

I really am not trying to be Debbie-downer here...I just don't want us to screw this up, and not have another chance down the road to improve.  I also want it to be a raging success, and maybe I'm just not educated enough but ridership needs to be high and it won't just fall into our laps.

With the barrel-price of oil topping $107.44 this morning, I think that will also go a long way toward making rail much more competitive with the cost of driving a car. 

 

As for time, even at 79mph, it still beats a car when you factor in not only the point-to-point travel time, but the time spent in finding parking in an urban setting and dealing with the timing of whatever local rush hour traffic periods exists.... which as we all know are longer and more intense than they ever were.

 

No worries on being a "downer" Rando, as we all need to be asking the hard questions of ourselves and finding the answers.

Don't forget the cost of parking in an urban setting.  There needs to be strong urban public transportation if inter-city rail is to connect the cities to make it viable to be without a car.    I think Strickland has made a good first step to developing a transportation vision for Ohio.  Its not a particular bold step though to say Amtrak should study connecting the 3 Cs. 

 

I think its pretty fair to say that funding roads helps the suburbs and funding rail helps the cities.  The suburbs have been well off for now 40-50 years. 

Great news about the new Assistant Director at ODOT.  Looks as though the new multimodal approach is beginning to take shape.  One question though - why is the ORDC split off from ODOT?  I thought at one time that there was a Rail Department within ODOT, much like the planning department, highway maintenance, etc.  The other DOTs (TxDOT, WisDOT, GADOT) I am somewhat familiar with have rail (or multimodal) divisions within the DOT.  Is there some advantage to having the ORDC as opposed to the ODOT Rail Division?

From the ORDC Website: http://www.dot.state.oh.us/ohiorail/

 

The Ohio Rail Development Commission was created in 1994 by the Ohio General Assembly under Ohio Revised Code Chapter 4981 as an independent commission within the department of transportation. The Commission has 14 members, including four non-voting members from the Ohio General Assembly. Six commissioners are appointed by the governor and one each by the President of the Ohio Senate and the Speaker of the Ohio House. The Ohio Department of Transportation and the Ohio Department of Development both have ex-officio membership.

 

ORDC's mission is "to plan, promote and implement the improved movement of goods and people faster and safer on a rail transportation network connecting Ohio to the nation and the world." The mission is to be accomplished through "a coordinated freight and passenger rail system which is an integral part of a seamless, intermodal transportation network contributing to Ohio's quality of life and economic development."

Through the use of grants and loans, ORDC:

 

1. performs a vital economic development function by assisting businesses locating or expanding in Ohio with rail spurs and other rail infrastructure;

 

2. helps rehabilitate light density branch lines on small short-line and regional railroads;

assists in the acquisition and continued operation of branch lines;

 

3. addresses special rail problems such as mainline congestion and assisting businesses with rail-related issues;

assists with the promotion of the rail-related tourism industry; and

 

4. maintains Ohio’s readiness to move toward intercity passenger rail service at both conventional and high speeds through a variety of planning initiatives.

 

ORDC uses Federal Highway Administration funds allocated by the Ohio Department of Transportation to fund at-grade crossing safety improvements.

 

 

From the Lorain Morning Journal:

 

03/11/2008

Get Cleveland-Lorain commuter rail going, plus downstate rail 

 

 

Let's hope that Gov. Strickland's call for passenger rail service from Cleveland to Cincinnati via Columbus also gives a boost to the long-sought commuter rail service from Cleveland to Lorain and beyond.

 

Strickland has asked Amtrak to study the idea and approach it from the angle of using existing tracks to get things up and running more quickly than building an entirely new high-speed system. Trains could travel at nearly 80 mph, according to rail proponent Ken Sislak of the non-profit group All Aboard Ohio.

 

Read more at:

 

http://www.morningjournal.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19378699&BRD=1699&PAG=461&dept_id=46368&rfi=6

As I understand things, CUT was built with two main issues in mind: To elevate the terminal so that flooding would not be an issue (ironically, it WAS flooded in the 1930's) and to consolidate railroad operations, making them more efficient.

 

It IS a distance from downtown, and if it is to be used as a station for Ohio Hub trains, we will definitely want a streetcar connection to downtown proper. We will have to be sure stations in all of Ohio's cities are well connected to local transit.

 

Maybe a trolley could use the subway along Central Ave and then run at surface level to CUT? How far is that and what would it cost?

 

What an art-deco masterpiece CUT is! :clap:

 

I thought the city of Cincinnati was planning a new station downtown for the Midwest Regional Rail CHI-Cincy route as well as the 3-C?

 

 

Yes, the vicinity of Longworth Hall was the city's preferred location after hiring a consultant to do a site selection analysis.

The difficulty with the Longworth Hall site is that it sits down at the level of the Ohio River and makes it difficult to make connections with existing Amtrak service into CUT.  It also makes it difficult to extend Ohio Hub service across the Ohio River to potentially connect with the Cincy-NKY airport.

Considering how slow the Cardinal is, I'll bet a back-up move to Longworth Hall and a fast trip up a rebuilt NYC line to Indy would be quicker than its current CSX route to Indy.

 

As for a link to the Cincy-NKY airport, here's my idea for that :) (note the former NYC line gets closer to the airport than any other railroad line)...

 

I'm always leary of back-up moves, as they are almost always time-consuming.  I would bet the freight railroads wouldn't be crazy about it either.  That's not to say something couldn't be worked out.

Especially since the Cardinal's back-up move would be over trackage that freight trains rarely/never use (under my scenario of coming in on the west side of Mill Creek past Queensgate). But we're a long way from that!

I think the connection to the NKY should be a gondola (the alps type)

That's hot.

More editorial support:

 

03/12/2008

Gas prices leave big holes in our wallets  

 

In this election year, we can only hope one of the presidential candidates will emerge with a solution.

Sticker shock? You betcha!! If you haven't filled up your fuel tank in the past week, you're in for a surprise. Drivers in Lake and Geauga counties spotted gas prices well over $3.40 on Tuesday.

 

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=19382466&BRD=1698&PAG=461&dept_id=220548&rfi=6

 

 

I'm always leary of back-up moves, as they are almost always time-consuming.  I would bet the freight railroads wouldn't be crazy about it either.  That's not to say something couldn't be worked out.

 

Can't we just have two engines per train, one for each side like they do in France with the TGV?

It's entirely possible it could be a push-pull operation.  The Downeaster in Maine is such a configuration: a locomotive at one end and what is called a "cabbage" (cab) car (usually an unpowered locomotive) at the other.

They do that on the Hiawatha Service trains between Chicago & Milwaukee, too. The Chicago end of the train has a gutted F40 with baggage doors ("cabbage" = cab + baggage) in the side. Here's one in a photo that got me an encounter with security in Union Station.

 

A study by Amtrak and the Ohio Rail Development Commission will be completed in 18 months. 

 

Nice to see the ball moving, but I'm still anxious for results.  How long did it take other states to move from this stage to actual passenger service?

 

Somewhat cynically, here's my best guess based on my limited information and experience in these matters.  In 18 months or so we'll have a report on the study, another six to twelve months for the State to consider its options, another six to twelve months to announce the options and convince the legislature to appropriate funds, and finally another couple of years to do whatever work needs to be done.  So best-case scenario we're looking at at least four years before we see 3-C trains?  Please tell me my assumptions are overly pessimistic.

 

 

I think you may actually be overly optimistic for on the amount of time needed to do the work.  But who knows, with enough dollars behind the effort, anything can happen.  Personally, I think we need a new president before we can even talk about the expenditure on large scale rail that would be required to actually build all of the links.  I'd love to see this happen.  Then when I fly out of Columbus or Dayton because they are universally cheaper than CVG with Delta monopoly, I can just ride the rail up to Columbus or Dayton instead of driving.

^ And that new prez had better not be McCain.  He is poison to rail.  http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/080128

 

 

Here is a letter I am mailing out to Governor Strickland today:

 

 

Governor Strickland,

 

I am currently a student at the University of Cincinnati, and I was born and raised in Cincinnati.  I would like to sincerely thank you for your support of passenger rail transportation in Ohio.  You have not only spoken in favor, of this issue, but also proven yourself with your actions.

 

I am a young individual who sees a great need for passenger rail service not only because of the ever-increasing gas prices, but also because of the need for alternative modes of transportation.  Many people cite automobiles as being a lifestyle choice, and that they should not have to pay for other modes of transit that they do not plan on using.  Well I consider the choice to not use an automobile extremely liberating, and a choice that should also be presented to the citizens of Ohio.

 

The 3-C Corridor project could put Ohio on the map nationally as being a great multi-modal place to live.  It would be wonderful to be able to hop on a train from my hometown of Cincinnati and travel to Columbus to catch the Columbus Crew in action, or to visit family and friends.

 

With this said, I also strongly encourage you to continue your stated support for the Cincinnati Streetcar project.  State funds will end up being instrumental in the development of this rail project, and it is imperative that you keep this effort in the front of your mind with the 3-C Corridor/Ohio Hub plan(s).  Keep up the good work, and lets make Ohio the multi-modal transportation model it should be.

 

I can't remember if the previous proposals for the Longworth Hall site proposed using the CH&D track which runs on the west side of the Mill Creek, which completely bypasses CUT and the Queensgate Yard.  This line was formerly a mainline through Northside and Spring Grove Cemetery linking up with the line that heads to Glendale and Hamilton in Ivorydale.  It now operates as a rarely-used spur from the area south of the yards and below the bridge approaches and was severed by I-71 in the early 1970's.  In order to use that line, Amtrak would use the 3-track CSX/N-S yard approach and cross the Mill Creek on a new bridge just west of the I-75/74 interchange. 

 

Hopefully these red dots give some idea as to what I'm talking about:

 

Here's another link:

http://homepage.mac.com/jjakucyk/Transit1/map70.gif