32 minutes ago, TMart said:

Penn and Grand Central may not be high enough based on what I read on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superliner_(railcar), "To this day, inadequate tunnel clearances in and around New York City prevent the use of Superliners on Amtrak's busiest line, the Northeast Corridor."

Yes I know this--what I meant was the clearance in the platform tunnels aren't not all that much higher than the single decker trains.     Moving in and out of stations are at slow speeds, so I doubt all that much clearance is necessary physically.   What regulations deem is an entire other matter.  

 

EDIT--come to think of it NJ Transit operates those double decker cars in and out of Penn .  How do they compare in height to Amtrak superliners?  

23 hours ago, Cleburger said:

EDIT--come to think of it NJ Transit operates those double decker cars in and out of Penn .  How do they compare in height to Amtrak superliners?  

 

I did a Google search and found out they're 14 feet 6 inches tall.

So this post got me thinking about this thread again. Is the Amtrak ConnectsUS totally decided on the lakefront location at this point? I couldn't find the post (sorry)but I recall upthread someone having said that the CUT concept KJP put together had been pitched and seemingly received well by some official or other. Is there still any hope for that grand vision for CUT? If the city and ODOT's E18th plan messes up the lakefront ConnectsUS plan and forces them into CUT then perhaps I could live with the E18th plan, suboptimal though it is...

 

Amtrak and the city are working on the assumption that there is no other option for a passenger rail station downtown until some other political or business mover-and-shaker causes the powers to consider Tower City. Just as there are complications with the lakefront site (East 18th extension), there are complications with the Tower City site (city possibly illegally giving away its lien to the route CVSR would take into downtown -- and existing Amtrak service isn't going to move to Tower City unless CVSR is there too).

As much as l would love to see Tower City as the center of rail traffic rather than the lakefront l'm not going to get my hopes up. There is just too much against it happening. Financial, legal and political.

 

Unless there is is sea change in American mentality l doubt we ever decide to make rail a viable transportation option. More service in more obvious locations (locations like Tower City rather than the lakefront) will remain a pipedream until then.

9 hours ago, cadmen said:

As much as l would love to see Tower City as the center of rail traffic rather than the lakefront l'm not going to get my hopes up. There is just too much against it happening. Financial, legal and political.

 

Unless there is is sea change in American mentality l doubt we ever decide to make rail a viable transportation option. More service in more obvious locations (locations like Tower City rather than the lakefront) will remain a pipedream until then.

 

Some states are making it happen. Ohio isn't one of them. Cleveland may get a couple of extra trains thanks to local partnerships with neighboring states or maybe some federal funds might allow an extra long-distance train. But that's about it. Ohio is going to make it very tough for itself to compete with other Great Lake states (except every place in Indiana but the NW corner) for climate refugees. And that's our best shot at enjoying Toronto-scale growth. 

Is it just simple will power from the state or is it the state willing to put up the funds to help a project like this in Cleveland?

55 minutes ago, guardianpayroll said:

Is it just simple will power from the state or is it the state willing to put up the funds to help a project like this in Cleveland?

 

Ohio leaders only take action when they are paid (er bribed) to act.

When l was growing up l used to be proud of our state. We were an economic powerhouse. We're still rich in a lot of ways but we have squandered our wealth and position as an innovator. We have been trending downward for decades. And who is too blame? I think it starts with our politicians and ends with our business leaders. 

 

 Texas is politically conservative but economically vibrant. At least their conservative leaders know how to get things done. Ohio is conservative but doesn't know how to get out of its own way and get things done like Texas does. So we end up with the worst of both worlds.

Yours truly appeared in this terrific video that used only old film of CUT and CUT trains. Too often, such videos used old film from other cities. Not this one...

 

 

@KJP/@neony/@gildone

 

Sorry if there was an update since and I missed it; I know these are separate at the moment, but with the new Amtrak route announcements I was wondering if there was any movement on returning passenger rail to CUT to update on since the initial activity back in May/June.

Not that I'm aware of. How about a Poor Man's CUT? A young man named Karl Toth sketched this concept for me eight years ago. 

 

 

49 minutes ago, KJP said:

Not that I'm aware of. How about a Poor Man's CUT? A young man named Karl Toth sketched this concept for me eight years ago. 

 

 

If this was combined with Zanonni’s subway concept that would turn north under East 22nd just after the end of this Rapid platform and then west under Euclid and Huron back to CUT, it wouldn’t be too bad. 

On 7/10/2023 at 11:51 AM, KJP said:

Amtrak and the city are working on the assumption that there is no other option for a passenger rail station downtown until some other political or business mover-and-shaker causes the powers to consider Tower City. Just as there are complications with the lakefront site (East 18th extension), there are complications with the Tower City site (city possibly illegally giving away its lien to the route CVSR would take into downtown -- and existing Amtrak service isn't going to move to Tower City unless CVSR is there too).

Amtrak says "It's the city's decision". A couple of us have warned one Amtrak official about possible encroachments on the E. 26th St yard and potential issues with Collinwood Yard. We've told NOACA about the pros and cons of TC vs. the Lakefront and suggested an alternatives analysis.  We  are trying to get a meeting with the Cleveland planning department.  We've unsuccessfully tried to meet with Bedrock. 

1 hour ago, gildone said:

Amtrak says "It's the city's decision". A couple of us have warned one Amtrak official about possible encroachments on the E. 26th St yard and potential issues with Collinwood Yard. We've told NOACA about the pros and cons of TC vs. the Lakefront and suggested an alternatives analysis.  We  are trying to get a meeting with the Cleveland planning department.  We've unsuccessfully tried to meet with Bedrock. 

 

Thanks for the update, I really hope this gains traction. With the caveat that I know far less about the ins and outs and so could obviously be missing something, returning passenger rail to Tower City seems like it would have more substantial knock-on effects than the lakefront; more existing transit lines, more centralized, ability to bring in additional connection (CVSR),ect.

 

I was thinking the other day though, Bedrock putting their weight behind returning Amtrak to CUT is only beneficial to them if service is at least improved (not at the middle of the night) and ideally expanded. Without the state showing any sort of initiative, and given Ohio R's track record, Bedrock likely reasonably believed either of those outcomes were not likely. Now with strong federal interest and money on the table I would hope they might give it some thought. 

On 7/10/2023 at 11:51 AM, KJP said:

city possibly illegally giving away its lien 

Would be nice to find out for sure if it was illegal then crowd-fund a lawsuit to get the liens back? 

Edited December 12, 20231 yr by gildone

NOACA voted today on hiring a consultant to conduct a study that could impact CUT. A NEOtrans article is posted in the CVSR thread about it.

Should this be a bridge for trains or a living room?

 

 

 

8 minutes ago, KJP said:

Should this be a bridge for trains or a living room?

 

 

 

 

I'd vote trains...

 

Is this a rendering from Bedrock's riverfront plan and which bridge is this? 

33 minutes ago, Luke_S said:

 

I'd vote trains...

 

Is this a rendering from Bedrock's riverfront plan and which bridge is this? 

It's the Red Line Greenway phase III extension.

 

Rail would be the best use of this space, but if we aren't going to use the space for rail (which if we're being honest currently looks likely), a trail would be better than it sitting vacant. Though if we're going to direct money to bike infrastructure, I think there are many higher priorities than this project. 

 

On 11/7/2023 at 9:55 AM, Ethan said:

^ For anyone not a cleveland.com subscriber. It looks like the same article is on msn 

 

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/don-quixote-of-cleveland-city-planning-holds-tight-to-dream-of-extending-red-line-greenway-across-cuyahoga-river/ar-AA1jtRja

 

Edit:

Here's the promotional YouTube video. 

 

 

Further edit, my thoughts:

It's an interesting idea. I'm not opposed, I'm just not sure that it's a) the best use of the space on the viaduct, and b) the best use of the funds it would require. 

 

And, here. We. Go....

 

 

12 minutes ago, KJP said:

And, here. We. Go....

 

 

I'm far more ambivalent to whether the Intercity station goes on the lakefront or the riverfront than most of the people on this forum. My main hesitation for the CUT option is that we already have a bit of momentum for a lakefront station, and I don't want to start back at the beginning.

 

That said, my personal recommendation if the intent is to sell the powers that be on the CUT option would be to mock your 2D schematic up in 3 dimensions. Last time this came up I was skeptical that this would actually work in 3 dimensions (the entrance to the viaduct and crossing over the waterfront line that is). I'll take you at your word that it does, but I can't imagine I'm the only person having that thought, or similar doubts. 

 

I know we have some forumers with access to and ability to use 3D CAD. I won't volunteer anyone, but if one of them is willing to help you out with some renderings (not a small chunk of time) it would go a long way to convincing detractors that this is a viable solution. Place those renderings in a professional looking graphic with arguments towards why it's the superior solution and I think that's the best solution. 

 

If I'm honest I think the station is going to go on the lakefront regardless based on everything I've seen or read (which is one of the reasons I'm fairly ambivalent) but the above is just a good faith suggestion of what I think is necessary to give a return to CUT it's best possible shot. 

What's the bigger concern is that Slife and others believe that expanding passenger rail service via the lakefront is "easy." It relatively easy is if we're adding just six daily 3C&D trains. But the Amtrak Connects US plan also proposes adding six more dailies to/from Detroit. Add that to the four nightly Amtraks and we're up to 16 Amtrak trains per day between Downtown and Berea. That's a lot of passenger trains to throw into the mix of 70 daily freights, many of which back in/out of Rockport Yard near Hopkins to pickup/set out cars.

 

Adding track capacity to the Downtown-Berea mainline is very problematic with the Red Line on one side and industries, houses and bridge abutments up against the mainline on the other.

 

Or the mainline freights could be moved off the lakefront to the lakefront bypass, which requires building the same extent of infrastructure there that would be necessary to restore Cleveland Union Terminal. Its even most of the same routing.

It sounds like the station should go where it has the greatest chance for growth, which seems like Tower City. They can wash their hands of this because a tiny stretch where the Green Line (edit: typo I mean red line green way) is. That's absurd. 

Edited April 27, 20241 yr by Mendo

Actually, Red Line. Do you mean the Red Line Greenway? And that 1,500-foot stretch, owned by GCRTA over which Metroparks has an easement, was actually designed for six tracks (including the Abbey and West 25th ovepasses) even though only four tracks were ever built. 

 

The greenway can be moved over 15 feet or relocated to the parallel Columbus Road as a cycletrack. I like the latter alternative because it can route the cycletrack into the Flats to connect with all of the trails down there.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

Actually, Red Line. Do you mean the Red Line Greenway? And that 1,500-foot stretch, owned by GCRTA over which Metroparks has an easement, was actually designed for six tracks (including the Abbey and West 25th ovepasses) even though only four tracks were ever built. 

 

The greenway can be moved over 15 feet or relocated to the parallel Columbus Road as a cycletrack. I like the latter alternative because it can route the cycletrack into the Flats to connect with all of the trails down there.

 

Yeah just a typo. I meant the Greenway. I ride it all the time but in no way should it block something like intercity rail.

And the Greenway is far from the biggest challenge for either station site/routing option. It not a fatal flaw.

 

Of course, that assumes that any rail expansion in Ohio ever happens. We live in one of the worst countries for transportation policy and one of the worst states in that country. Why? Because more Americans have joined the Flat Earth Society than have joined passenger rail advocacy organizations (that was true at one time, at least).

^ Yeah, l don't even want to think about it...can't think about it. Getting Americans to actually use passenger trains, actually fund and actually build/rebuild rail lines, l can't, l won't even think about it. It's like going back to a time when people were more relaxed, more civil, lived a life beyond their their phone screens. We're a different place now, a different people.

 

But man, actually having access to trains (the best, most comfortable, most civilized form of transportation ever invented), actually being able to take a light rail (l know we're not talking about light here) to a central location that is connected to a station with access to heavy rail that comes often and goes everywhere...well those times have come and gone along with black and white movies, along with a time when people were less jaded, nicer or at least pretended to be. 

 

Real train travel. I can't even think about it.

 

 

I was clicking around on Google maps poking around the spots that would be impacted by this, but I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of the various rail systems outside of the RTA. How would Amtrak be handled at the Fulton Rd. bridge over the tracks near Bailey/Train Aves? Seems like they narrow to just the RTA tracks, so I assume there'd have to be a cutover (and maybe reconfiguring of the RTA tracks) of some sort - red or blue below, or something else?
 

21 minutes ago, gpodawund said:

I was clicking around on Google maps poking around the spots that would be impacted by this, but I'm not very familiar with the ins and outs of the various rail systems outside of the RTA. How would Amtrak be handled at the Fulton Rd. bridge over the tracks near Bailey/Train Aves? Seems like they narrow to just the RTA tracks, so I assume there'd have to be a cutover (and maybe reconfiguring of the RTA tracks) of some sort - red or blue below, or something else?
 

Yes - between West 25th and Fulton Rd, the passenger tracks would transfer from being parallel to the red line to merging onto the Norfolk Southern line, very similar to your red line connection. They would go southwest to Linndale and reconnect with the west bound line immediately south of the airport. Ken sketched it out somewhere up thread. 

When trains traveled into CUT, didn't they all have to switch to electric locomotives coming into CUT because of the ventilation? Wouldn't there need to be ventilation systems installed to handle the diesel locomotives?

4 minutes ago, TMart said:

When trains traveled into CUT, didn't they all have to switch to electric locomotives coming into CUT because of the ventilation? Wouldn't there need to be ventilation systems installed to handle the diesel locomotives?

 

The electrification was removed in 1953 because railroads had "dieselized" their passenger trains by then. After that until the last train departed in 1977, all trains that served CUT did so under diesel power.

3 minutes ago, KJP said:

 

The city won't do anything about the use of Tower City unless Bedrock asks them to. If you show to Bedrock that it's worth their while and they agree, the city will get on board. 

 

To keep this thread on topic, let's discuss it further at:

 

 

City council seemed hostile to the idea of moving Amtrak based on council person Slife's comments earlier this year. Instead of supporting the idea he punted to RTA and the Greenway.

12 minutes ago, Mendo said:

 

City council seemed hostile to the idea of moving Amtrak based on council person Slife's comments earlier this year. Instead of supporting the idea he punted to RTA and the Greenway.

Do you happen to remember why? Was is the supposed cost?

4 minutes ago, Enginerd said:

Do you happen to remember why? Was is the supposed cost?

 

There was a Twitter thread where he was commenting on the idea. I'm paraphrasing but he claimed the Metroparks was the impediment since they leased the RTA owned right of way for the Greenway. Instead of coming out in support and saying they would work with whomever to make it happen, he punted responsibility. 

Yep. So the only way Cleveland can get the Amtrak Connects Us service levels (or Brightline-scale service) is if we build CUT-scale rail infrastructure on much of the former CUT routing to divert freight trains off the lakefront. Make that make sense to me.

12 minutes ago, KJP said:

Yep. So the only way Cleveland can get the Amtrak Connects Us service levels (or Brightline-scale service) is if we build CUT-scale rail infrastructure on much of the former CUT routing to divert freight trains off the lakefront. Make that make sense to me.

You’re saying that’s the only way to get increased service at the Lakefront Station?

 

Yeah, it sure doesn’t.

Just now, KJP said:

Yep. So the only way Cleveland can get the Amtrak Connects Us service levels (or Brightline-scale service) is if we build CUT-scale rail infrastructure on much of the former CUT routing to divert freight trains off the lakefront. Make that make sense to me.

 

I don't know these routes as well as you, but it would seem to me that if we were to absolutely maximize the opportunity of expanded passenger rail service it would be to move Amtrak back to CUT and divert all through freight traffic south of downtown, leaving only the rail line to serve the port. 

 

Based on this post would those occupy the same rail right-of-ways and so not be feasible? 

To me, the best way to do this would be one big project, that also gets us a rapid line out to either Crocker or the Westlake PnR, commuter rail out to Lorain or Sandusky, and maybe starts up a few others.  Mostly using that commuter rail plan from 2010ish. Also accessing Tower City via the CUT lines you all have mentioned.

 

I'll compare it to the the new line in Washington, the portion that will connect Redmond and Bellevue since a lot of it is elevated, and they've had a couple hundred million in federal money come in to help which we obviously need.

 

Step 1: state/fed/counties/someone buy the NS line that goes through Lakewood out to Vermilion.  Could there be some sort of partnership where the feds buy this stretch, and we lease the use? or vice versa?

 

Step 2: build an elevated line from Cudell station to the West Clifton area.  This avoids 30+ grade crossings, and we can build a Miami style underline beneath it for some walking and biking trails. There is a room for 500-1000+ housing units along this line from around W77 to W110, not including the Watterson or Walz developments.  An infill station Between W77 and W85 could put another 5-6k withing walking distance of a stop on this line and the red line.

 

Step 3: electrify at least the rapid portion which would go to either Crocker or the Westlake PnR and buy some more of the new trains.  Using a rough guesstimate from the 2020 census data, this 10 mile extension from Cudell to Bassett Rd is almost the same distance as the Bellevue and Redmond portions of line 2, but has about twice the population living within .5 miles of the line.  The line in Washington does have significantly more jobs along this portion of the line though.  But with the new line connecting to Downtown on the existing redline track, it probably wouldn't differ much.  If you terminate this line at the Cedar station instead of Tower City to connect all of these people to the UC jobs, it could get even more riders.

 

Step 4: Commuter rail to Lorain, less frequent or Thursday-Sunday service to Sandusky.  The including the Tower City stop, this line would have around 400k+ within 3 miles of it.  Probably use DMUs on this line that run on the elevated electrified rail.  Good tourism line as well. Combine with a CVSR extension to Cleveland with commuter DMUs to Canton, People can fly into Cleveland or Akron for a weekend and see the Pro Football HOF, Cuyahoga Valley, and go to Cedar Point by rail.  Along with all of the other attractions like the Rock Hall, Art Museum, Orchestra, etc. already accessible.

 

Step 5: Decide which route Amtrak takes out of the station.  It could go over the red line bridge, and connect to the purchased rail line, then build a connection to the existing route it takes near the airport. Or connect to the Westside CUT out through Linndale towards the airport.  Or the Elyria station could move to Lorain and it could take that route out to Sandusky for Chicago and Detroit lines.

 

Step 6: CUT project on the Southeast side for Amtrak to access Tower City.  This could also help get some DMUs going out to Solon and Bedford, and a Cleveland to Pittsburgh line could run a few times a day.  Maybe the Detroit/Toledo/Cleveland line just extends to Pittsburgh.  Or have 4 daily RTs, 2 end in Buffalo/Niagara, 2 end in Pittsburgh.  Call them the Lake Erie Connector and the Rust Belt Limited or something like that.

 

This would obviously cost a ton of money, but other than the elevated portion I don't think it would be too extreme. And it would be very good value for the money spent and have a huge impact on the region. I think a rapid line through Lakewood would immediately become the highest ridership line, and may pass the other 3 combined.  With this plus new trains probably giving a bump in ridership along with Downtown population growth, maybe the movie theater and other stores can justify coming back to Tower City.

Edited August 16, 2024Aug 16 by PlanCleveland
Typo

1 hour ago, Enginerd said:

You’re saying that’s the only way to get increased service at the Lakefront Station?

 

Yeah, it sure doesn’t.

 

For the lakefront, it may be possible to add a track on the east/southeast side of the NS mainline, opposite of the Red Line, but would require significant work to widen overpasses and underpasses, rework signal systems and tracks in and out of Rockport Yard near I-480 and the airport. It is possible that a "flyover" track from the NS mainline to the CSX mainline at Berea could be needed. But I don't know if this would be significantly cheaper and offer the rail traffic fluidity that could be provided by the Lakefront Bypass for freight.

 

1 hour ago, Luke_S said:

 

I don't know these routes as well as you, but it would seem to me that if we were to absolutely maximize the opportunity of expanded passenger rail service it would be to move Amtrak back to CUT and divert all through freight traffic south of downtown, leaving only the rail line to serve the port. 

 

Based on this post would those occupy the same rail right-of-ways and so not be feasible? 

 

It might be feasible, yes. Much of the former CUT right of way is very wide but might still require some additional bridge work in many locations as the old, wider railroad bridge decks were removed for narrower ones, such as above West 65th. But the next bridge east, over Clark Avenue, is still the original width of five tracks even though only two tracks remain. But there are still many challenges to restoring this as a through route for passenger traffic and heavy freight traffic.

All this talk of expanded passenger rail is making me dizzy. Rail is by far my favorite form of transportation. Too bad there aren't more people who think like that. In America we rail lovers are a distinct minority.

1 hour ago, cadmen said:

All this talk of expanded passenger rail is making me dizzy. Rail is by far my favorite form of transportation. Too bad there aren't more people who think like that. In America we rail lovers are a distinct minority.

We love rail. We take trains whenever we can. My daughter takes the train to school every day and we a lot of times, take the train to New York to visit family.

Nice thread on making Cleveland an Amtrak hub. Looks to be a NeoTrans fan. 

 

 

Here’s a teaser for a new Cleveland render @Geowizical will be publishing soon…

More info on the website!

https://methodicle.com/passenger-rail-day-of-advocacy/