NOACA is ready to fund a feasibility study for the CVSR extension to Cleveland.  I thought the part about expediting the study to keep up with Bedrock and the city of Cleveland is interesting and a good sign.  From NOACA's Board of Directors Agenda for this Friday:

 

Quote

DATE: January 5, 2024

RE: Resolution 2024-007: Procurement - Engineering & Feasibility Study for CVSR Extension

 

ACTION REQUESTED

The Board of Directors is asked to approve Resolution 2024-007, authorizing the Executive Director to enter into a contract with AECOM in an amount not-to-exceed $450,000 to conduct an engineering and feasibility study for the extension of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad. This item was reviewed by the Finance and Audit Committee and recommended for consideration by the Board during a special meeting held on December 22, 2023.

 

BACKGROUND/JUSTIFICATION FOR CURRENT ACTION

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) and the U.S. National Park Service (NPS) desire to extend CVSR’s train service along a 10.8-mile corridor that travels from the Rockside Road Station in the City of Independence into Downtown Cleveland.

 

While this procurement item was originally slated for Board consideration at its March 2024 meeting, we have moved up the approval process in order to keep pace with City of Cleveland and Bedrock Development’s design plans for redevelopment of a portion of the Cuyahoga riverfront. This riverfront area surrounds the northern terminus of the proposed CVSR extension.

 

Agencies partnering on the project include: NOACA, Canalway Partners, City of Cleveland, Cleveland Metroparks, Cuyahoga County, Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad, Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority, Port of Cleveland, and the U.S. National Park Service.

 

The engineering and feasibility study for the extension project includes the following objectives:

• update project engineering work

• estimate capital, operating and maintenance costs

• prepare an environmental screening report

• assess market reach for potential future ridership

• conduct a regional economic impact analysis

• conduct a cost/benefit analysis

• develop a financial analysis and funding plan

 

Edited January 8, 20241 yr by acd

^ You can easily imagine Tower City once again becoming a holiday mecca featuring a Polar Express. 

 

Someday! 

Hopefully the old B&O station can be utilized in some function as part of this potential project of bringing the CVSR into downtown Cleveland.  This historic landmark building has the potential to be redeveloped and restored into a visitors center/train station and become the keystone link to the Flats, Tower City, the new Canal Basin Park, Scranton Island, Lake-Link Trail and Irish Town Bend in Ohio City.  

holy schmokes is that good news.

 

finally !!!! 💥

A lot is working against this, including CSX and Bedrock. More later.

If a shortline railroad company or the Cleveland-Cuyahoga County Port Authority can get involved here, it would greatly simplify CVSR's extension to downtown Cleveland. The short line or port authority would probably need to acquire CSX's CT&V Subdivision (Valley Line) north of Independence, the Cleveland Subdivision north of CSX's Parma Yard and Short Line Subdivision (near Brookpark and West 130th) and Norfolk Southern's Cleveland Belt Line Branch from a railroad location called Knob down into the Flats via Big Creek Valley. See map below....

 

And I encourage Bedrock, the city, GCRTA, AECOM, NOACA, CVSR et al to consider this ROW to access Tower City Center since Bedrock wants a de-emphasized Canal Road on a new alignment below Tower City and no rails through there. There is an unfortunate tendency of the consultant to look at only historic rail rights of way for CVSR and not any new ROWs to accomplish the goal of connecting to people, amenities and other transportation modes. The 2007 diagram was for an exploration of how to get commuter rail into CUT from the east/south.

 

 

 

Jesus! We act like building any kind of rail in this country is akin to going to the moon. While the rest of the world continues to fund, build, maintain and USE rail, in America we act like it's kryptonite. What is wrong with us?

 

The difference is that, at least in the USA, going to the moon is cheaper than building infrastructure.

 

BTW, the first graphic in my previous post won't work. I just learned GCRTA and Bedrock are going to "remove the roof" over Canal Road. That "roof" was built for Cleveland Union Terminal tracks to enter the station and the train storage yards. But its removal might actually help in building a CVSR track ramp on the current Canal Road ROW to get into Tower City.

 

 

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic RR to downtown Cleveland to be studied

By Ken Prendergast / January 12, 2024

 

While it’s only 10 miles from the northern terminus of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad (CVSR) in suburban Independence to Downtown Cleveland, it will take years to get there in the best of circumstances. But that first step in the long journey was taken today when a metropolitan transportation planning organization voted to hire a consultant to conduct a feasibility study of the potential route extension.

 

MORE:

https://neo-trans.blog/2024/01/12/cuyahoga-valley-scenic-rr-to-downtown-cleveland-to-be-studied/

Well that's a start. 

 

So here's a question for you Ken. In your article you listed all the agencies who will be consulted for their imput. Is that an indication of great leadership and communication by all the necessary parties or is it a sign bureaucratic inertia? 

3 hours ago, cadmen said:

Well that's a start. 

 

So here's a question for you Ken. In your article you listed all the agencies who will be consulted for their imput. Is that an indication of great leadership and communication by all the necessary parties or is it a sign bureaucratic inertia? 

 

It is a hope that all will contribute resources of time, talents and treasure.

Interesting little wrinkle buried in Litt's CVSRR article (also mentioned by KJP):  NOACA wants to study the potential for local commuting between downtown and Independence Road. No wonder Birdsong Terry abstained from the vote; We can't be having any competition for RTA.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/01/feasibility-study-to-extend-cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-wins-noaca-approval.html

4 minutes ago, Dougal said:

Interesting little wrinkle buried in Litt's CVSRR article (also mentioned by KJP):  NOACA wants to study the potential for local commuting between downtown and Independence Road. No wonder Birdsong Terry abstained from the vote; We can't be having any competition for RTA.

 

https://www.cleveland.com/news/2024/01/feasibility-study-to-extend-cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-wins-noaca-approval.html

Abstaining when there is even a potential conflict of interest is the ethical thing to do.  RTA could benefit from increased ridership from the Independence station, so a vote in favor might be viewed as seeking a benefit for RTA.  And a vote against also could be seen as seeking a benefit for RTA -- seeking to retain RTA passengers to and from Independence Road.  Abstaining was the correct decision.

 

But hooray that NOACA is studying the potential for commuter use between downtown and Independence Road!

Is CVSRR the best operator for a commuter train or would RTA be able run on the route in tandem with CVSRR? 

 

I wouldn't think the operating hours or frequency/speed of CVSRR would be all that conducive to commuters. 

2 hours ago, Luke_S said:

Is CVSRR the best operator for a commuter train or would RTA be able run on the route in tandem with CVSRR? 

 

I wouldn't think the operating hours or frequency/speed of CVSRR would be all that conducive to commuters. 

If the study says good things about making the connection to Tower City, I'm not particular about who sponsors getting the connection built, or who operates the trains. 

 

I would like to think that CVSRR and RTA would talk about how to work together.  That might mean that CVSRR only operates trains from Akron to Independence, with RTA operating a train from there into Tower City (and beyond).

If they're going to go through the trouble of bringing a passenger train all the way into Tower City through Independence it seems silly to not to at least consider commuter rail as well. I'm glad to hear this is being looked at.

 

If the rail is only going to be used for CVSR I'm basically fine with extending it only up to Flats South Bank, similar to what's proposed in the Vision For The Valley. Not saying I would prefer that, just that it wouldn't upset me much. But if you're going all the way to Tower City and as a result linking Independence/Valley View to the regional rail system, the case for making this track dual use seems too strong to pass up. Though I'm not sure how realistically possible that is with RTA being electrified and CVSR not. 

 

On an unrelated note, given that most of CVSR is single track, will they have to decrease frequency to accommodate the extra length of going into downtown Cleveland? If yes can they get around this with strategic double tracking in certain areas? 

24 minutes ago, Ethan said:

If they're going to go through the trouble of bringing a passenger train all the way into Tower City through Independence it seems silly to not to at least consider commuter rail as well. I'm glad to hear this is being looked at.

 

If the rail is only going to be used for CVSR I'm basically fine with extending it only up to Flats South Bank, similar to what's proposed in the Vision For The Valley. Not saying I would prefer that, just that it wouldn't upset me much. But if you're going all the way to Tower City and as a result linking Independence/Valley View to the regional rail system, the case for making this track dual use seems too strong to pass up. Though I'm not sure how realistically possible that is with RTA being electrified and CVSR not. 

 

On an unrelated note, given that most of CVSR is single track, will they have to decrease frequency to accommodate the extra length of going into downtown Cleveland? If yes can they get around this with strategic double tracking in certain areas? 

 

It ties into the idea that mass transit doesn't need to be public transit.   With bigger cars/seats and other amenities and charging a premium they might get people on board who would never use RTA on a regular basis.

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

If they're going to go through the trouble of bringing a passenger train all the way into Tower City through Independence it seems silly to not to at least consider commuter rail as well. I'm glad to hear this is being looked at.

 

If the rail is only going to be used for CVSR I'm basically fine with extending it only up to Flats South Bank, similar to what's proposed in the Vision For The Valley. Not saying I would prefer that, just that it wouldn't upset me much. But if you're going all the way to Tower City and as a result linking Independence/Valley View to the regional rail system, the case for making this track dual use seems too strong to pass up. Though I'm not sure how realistically possible that is with RTA being electrified and CVSR not. 

 

On an unrelated note, given that most of CVSR is single track, will they have to decrease frequency to accommodate the extra length of going into downtown Cleveland? If yes can they get around this with strategic double tracking in certain areas? 

Commuter / Regional rail would use DMU (diesel multiple units) to be compatible with CVSR trains. Light Rail (and even Heavy Rail / subway) vehicles can’t be on the same tracks as passenger (or freight) trains due to FRA crash-worthiness requirements. 
 

My main concern about making the route regional rail is that there aren’t any good ridership generators on the route. A bad, underperforming route undermines efforts in future good routes. A great example is the Waterfront Line - nothing on that route is a good transit generator, so not many people use it, and now we haven’t had any more rail extensions in the 25+ years since it opened. It was closed for years and barely anyone noticed. 
 

I’m not flat out rejecting the idea of making it Regional rail, and there’s potential for it to benefit the CVSR extension project, it just isn’t a strong transit project. Another way to make it a better project would be to add substantial housing on a few parking lots at the Steelyard near the proposed CVSR intermediate station (or maybe there’s other available parcels along the route) - that could generate some ridership. 
 

RTA would be capable of running the trains, but it wouldn’t be the best use of their limited resources. 
 

As far as frequency, I would think  they would add at least one more train so they could maintain frequency.  This would also be a good reason to complement the service with additional DMUs for more frequent service. 

11 hours ago, Foraker said:

If the study says good things about making the connection to Tower City, I'm not particular about who sponsors getting the connection built, or who operates the trains. 

 

I would like to think that CVSRR and RTA would talk about how to work together.  That might mean that CVSRR only operates trains from Akron to Independence, with RTA operating a train from there into Tower City (and beyond).

 

Some kind of cooperative venture does sound like the best choice.  Hasn't there also been talk of a Steelyard Commons stop for CVSRR? That would make even more sense if RTA were running DMU's. (I will always call then Budd cars.)

5 hours ago, Dougal said:

 

Some kind of cooperative venture does sound like the best choice.  Hasn't there also been talk of a Steelyard Commons stop for CVSRR? That would make even more sense if RTA were running DMU's. (I will always call then Budd cars.)

When CVSR previously studied the extension, the Steelyard developer committed to building a station. Everyone involved seems to assume there will be a station there. 

I would like to see CVSR or GCRTA run high/low-floor DMUs every 1-2 hours during the weekdays to Rockside or Brecksville plus several trips to Akron with CVSR running their historic trains on Friday evenings and weekends.

 

I would add stops at Tower City, Tremont/West 7th, Steelyard, Harvard (with a paved trail to the Zoo), SR21 Brecksville Rd and of course Rockside. 

 

I would also build a trail from the Indigo Lake station to Blossom Music Center. The station is the same distance from the amphitheater to the outer grassy parking lots near Steele's Corner Road.

24 minutes ago, KJP said:

I would like to see CVSR or GCRTA run high/low-floor DMUs every 1-2 hours during the weekdays to Rockside or Brecksville plus several trips to Akron with CVSR running their historic trains on Friday evenings and weekends.

 

I would add stops at Tower City, Tremont/West 7th, Steelyard, Harvard (with a paved trail to the Zoo), SR21 Brecksville Rd and of course Rockside. 

 

I would also build a trail from the Indigo Lake station to Blossom Music Center. The station is the same distance from the amphitheater to the outer grassy parking lots near Steele's Corner Road.

When I spoke to the CVSR extension project manager, he said rail transport to/from Blossom is one of the concepts they are discussing. 
 

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

When I spoke to the CVSR extension project manager, he said rail transport to/from Blossom is one of the concepts they are discussing. 
 

 

This would be such a great feature.  I've pretty much written off going to Blossom anymore because of the traffic, but this could change my mind.  Also, considering the number of party buses I've seen going to shows, CVSR could probably make a killing selling alcohol to people pre-gaming for concerts.

Taking CVSR to Blossom for a country concert might end up being like the Rapid on St Patrick’s day 😆

15 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Commuter / Regional rail would use DMU (diesel multiple units) to be compatible with CVSR trains. Light Rail (and even Heavy Rail / subway) vehicles can’t be on the same tracks as passenger (or freight) trains due to FRA crash-worthiness requirements. 
 

My main concern about making the route regional rail is that there aren’t any good ridership generators on the route. A bad, underperforming route undermines efforts in future good routes. A great example is the Waterfront Line - nothing on that route is a good transit generator, so not many people use it, and now we haven’t had any more rail extensions in the 25+ years since it opened. It was closed for years and barely anyone noticed. 
 

I’m not flat out rejecting the idea of making it Regional rail, and there’s potential for it to benefit the CVSR extension project, it just isn’t a strong transit project. Another way to make it a better project would be to add substantial housing on a few parking lots at the Steelyard near the proposed CVSR intermediate station (or maybe there’s other available parcels along the route) - that could generate some ridership. 
 

RTA would be capable of running the trains, but it wouldn’t be the best use of their limited resources. 
 

As far as frequency, I would think  they would add at least one more train so they could maintain frequency.  This would also be a good reason to complement the service with additional DMUs for more frequent service. 

As annoying as it is, I think you're right. Looking at the potential stops as laid out by KJP, the best ones are only okay not great. (Collapsed to save space). 

 

--

 

19 hours ago, Ethan said:

Rockside: at a high level view a great stop with a lot of jobs in the area, but at street level there is almost nothing for 1/2 mile+ in either direction. Basically everyone wanting to use this stop would need a bus going East or West on Rock side. It's a pretty large employment hub, but it doesn't stop close enough to the main hub to be a great stop. 

 

Brecksville: This stop would be almost the inverse, at a high level this is basically a highway interchange, but the train does stop at a mini node with some activity. Could be interesting area for TOD, not a great stop right now. 

 

Harvard: Not much here, and it would still be a 1.3-1.5 mile walk to the zoo's ticket booth depending on the route taken. Without some significant TOD, I'm not sure this is worth a stop tbh. 

 

Steelyard: I'm not sure exactly where the station would be built, but regardless the steelyard would need a better way to move from big box store to big box store without a car for this stop to make sense on more than just paper. Possibly a looping trolley bus, such as below. 

 

 

W7th: 1/4 mile from this stop just to cross 490 which keeps it from being a great stop, but a large portion of what people consider the "hot" areas of Tremont are within 3/4 of a mile ~15min walk, and it's almost all within a mile. ~20-25 min walk. So a pretty good stop overall, any amount of rail to Tremont is overdue.

 

--

 

Which sort of brings me back to my original point, if it doesn't make sense to make this route dual purpose for CVSR and commuter rail, I'm not sure it makes sense to go through the trouble of extending this route all the way into Tower City. Yeah it would be cool, I'm just not sure how much trouble it's worth.

 

I also don't really know How Much easier it would be to extend CVSR to the south flats than it would be to go to all the way to Tower City. I'm sure it's more costly, but I'm not sure how much, which makes it hard to compare costs vs benefits. I'd say extending into the south bank of the flats gives us ~80% of the benefit of extending into Tower City, so if extending into Tower City increases costs by more than 20% I don't think it's worth it. Given all the troubles that we'd encounter from not being able to run RTAs normal trains on CVSR tracks, I'm guessing it will be much more than a 20% increase in costs. 

 

14 minutes ago, Ethan said:

As annoying as it is, I think you're right. Looking at the potential stops as laid out by KJP, the best ones are only okay not great. (Collapsed to save space). 

 

--

 

 

--

 

Which sort of brings me back to my original point, if it doesn't make sense to make this route dual purpose for CVSR and commuter rail, I'm not sure it makes sense to go through the trouble of extending this route all the way into Tower City. Yeah it would be cool, I'm just not sure how much trouble it's worth.

 

I also don't really know How Much easier it would be to extend CVSR to the south flats than it would be to go to all the way to Tower City. I'm sure it's more costly, but I'm not sure how much, which makes it hard to compare costs vs benefits. I'd say extending into the south bank of the flats gives us ~80% of the benefit of extending into Tower City, so if extending into Tower City increases costs by more than 20% I don't think it's worth it. Given all the troubles that we'd encounter from not being able to run RTAs normal trains on CVSR tracks, I'm guessing it will be much more than a 20% increase in costs. 

 

All of this is the reason for the feasibility study! We will know more once it’s complete. I think Ken’s concept of a station by the post office southeast of downtown is another reasonable approach (for transfers to/from RTA). I think the project is very much worth doing - giving more people access to the National Park is an excellent goal. More people and fewer cars in the park - win / win. 

25 minutes ago, Ethan said:

Which sort of brings me back to my original point, if it doesn't make sense to make this route dual purpose for CVSR and commuter rail, I'm not sure it makes sense to go through the trouble of extending this route all the way into Tower City. Yeah it would be cool, I'm just not sure how much trouble it's worth.

 

It maybe worth doing if for no other reason than preserving the rail right-of-way for passenger rail. 

 

It seems unlikely at this point that Amtrak would return to Tower City, but I believe Ken has said in the past that some of the costs to re-establish that right-of-way could be shared with CVSRR. 

 

Even more unlikely, if the old inter-city commuter route from Cleveland to Hudson-Akron-Canton was ever dusted off and implemented I would think it would utilize this right-of-way as well. 

 

I do want to stress that it would still only maybe  worth doing. Seemingly long odds on either of those happening. 

The distance is roughly the same as the crow flies from the grassy parking lots to Blossom as the Indigo Lake CVSR Station to Blossom, but there's a roughly 235-foot elevation difference. Not insurmountable, but I would have golf carts on standby for those less physically fit! Or maybe an inclined railway? It includes a rising, roughly 600-foot-long bridge over the Cuyahoga River and Akron-Peninsula Road. The rising bridge from a new embankment would help get a head start on the hill climb on a more gradual gradient.

 

2 hours ago, KJP said:

The distance is roughly the same as the crow flies from the grassy parking lots to Blossom as the Indigo Lake CVSR Station to Blossom, but there's a roughly 235-foot elevation difference. Not insurmountable, but I would have golf carts on standby for those less physically fit! Or maybe an inclined railway? It includes a rising, roughly 600-foot-long bridge over the Cuyahoga River and Akron-Peninsula Road. The rising bridge from a new embankment would help get a head start on the hill climb on a more gradual gradient.

 

I was thinking they would use the propane powered trams that they already use for orchestra concerts. They would have to build some kind of roadway, but it could be a lightweight road. 
 

Another fun option would be gondolas (like at a ski resort), but I’m not sure if the capacity would be sufficient. It would really help cut the noise compared to those propane trams though. 

4 hours ago, Ethan said:

As annoying as it is, I think you're right. Looking at the potential stops as laid out by KJP, the best ones are only okay not great. (Collapsed to save space). 

 

--

 

 

--

 

Which sort of brings me back to my original point, if it doesn't make sense to make this route dual purpose for CVSR and commuter rail, I'm not sure it makes sense to go through the trouble of extending this route all the way into Tower City. Yeah it would be cool, I'm just not sure how much trouble it's worth.

 

I also don't really know How Much easier it would be to extend CVSR to the south flats than it would be to go to all the way to Tower City. I'm sure it's more costly, but I'm not sure how much, which makes it hard to compare costs vs benefits. I'd say extending into the south bank of the flats gives us ~80% of the benefit of extending into Tower City, so if extending into Tower City increases costs by more than 20% I don't think it's worth it. Given all the troubles that we'd encounter from not being able to run RTAs normal trains on CVSR tracks, I'm guessing it will be much more than a 20% increase in costs. 

 

All good reasons for RTA to jump on some property for TOD.

On 1/18/2024 at 10:42 AM, Luke_S said:

It seems unlikely at this point that Amtrak would return to Tower City,

 

The City needs to do an alternatives analysis to compare issues related to both TC and the Lakefront. Both have pros and cons.  

 

Two big issues with the Lakefront are the Cuyhoga River crossing and Collinwood Yard. Once we get, in the future, to the level of service we need to be successful (think Brightline), the lift bridge and potentially Collinwood yard become a problem. We'd be looking at dozens trains/day crossing the river and up to 30 or 35/day having to pass through Collinwood Yard and potential choke points to the east of Collinwood Yard. 

 

Tower City gets around those problems, but creates others. A portion of the Redline Greenway would have to be moved and it changes how the airport would be served.  There may be an RTA bldg in the way just east of Tower City. 

 

Also for CVSR to get into Tower City, they need a grade of 1% on the eastern approach. That engineering problem would have to be solved.

 

The City has been made aware of the potential issues.  It's up to them now to decide how to proceed. I hope they do an alternatives analysis--and as soon as possible. 

1 hour ago, gildone said:

 

Also for CVSR to get into Tower City, they need a grade of 1% on the eastern approach. That engineering problem would have to be solved.

 

 

 

2% -- which isn't a serious problem for a passenger train. 

 

What could be a problem is how the new Eagle Avenue ramp is designed. It could potentially block CVSR and Amtrak trains.

On 1/22/2024 at 1:44 PM, KJP said:

2% -- which isn't a serious problem for a passenger train

I realize that's generally the case, but in this instance it's 1%- verified. 

Edited January 23, 20241 yr by gildone

CVSR is stoping operations for a few months while it implements safety improvements. This is unrelated to the track repairs that have taken place over the past few years due to erosion, and appears to be self-imposed for the most part. Improvements will include "advancements in radio communications, operations management software and onboard camera systems.”

 

But there was an interesting piece of news buried at the end of the Crain's article;

 

CVSR also is implementing what’s known as GCOR, or General Code of Operating Rules, followed by major railroads. The period in which CVSR trains aren’t running will be used to train engineers and other personnel in GCOR safety protocols, Mazur said.

 

He said implementing GCOR also is critical for a potential expansion of CVSR to Cleveland. The railroad is conducting a study of a plan to extend about 10 miles from Rockside Road in Independence to downtown.

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad to suspend passenger trains for two months for safety upgrades

Scott Suttell

March 4th 2024

I’m hearing that CVSR will resume operations (south from Peninsula only) as of May 3, although I haven’t yet seen it confirmed from a reliable source. Looks like they are selling tickets for a Mothers Day outing, so either way ops should resume soon. 

On 4/21/2024 at 9:15 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

I’m hearing that CVSR will resume operations (south from Peninsula only) as of May 3, although I haven’t yet seen it confirmed from a reliable source. Looks like they are selling tickets for a Mothers Day outing, so either way ops should resume soon. 

CVSR is confirming operations to resume on May 3

 

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=838619648294915&set=a.554622976694585&type=3

Do we know if trips will be going back to Rockside this year?

1 hour ago, Enginerd said:

Do we know if trips will be going back to Rockside this year?

That would be a great question to ask at the AAO tour of the CVSR maintenance facility on June 15. Please register and come join us!

 

 

On 4/25/2024 at 8:03 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Northeast Ohio AAO events coming up soon! We will be hosting our next chapter meeting in Akron at the main public library downtown. It will be on Wednesday, May 15 at 6pm. Please register (link) if you will be able to join us so that we know how many people to expect.

 

The Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad has graciously offered to host an AAO visit to their maintenance facility in Brecksville. The tour will be on Saturday, June 15 from 11am to 12:30. Space is limited, so please register soon (link). (And let us know if you have a change of plans, in case we end up with a waitlist.) The event is open to all, but preference will be given to AAO paid members. Thank you CVSR!

 

The statewide Zoom call is the second Saturday of each month. The next will be at 10am on May 11. Please register to receive the Zoom link.

 

 

If you are interested in learning more about the CVSR, please join the local AAO chapter for a visit to their maintenance facility in Brecksville. Please register at the link in the quoted post:

 

On 4/25/2024 at 8:03 PM, Boomerang_Brian said:

Northeast Ohio AAO events coming up soon! The Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad has graciously offered to host an AAO visit to their maintenance facility in Brecksville. The tour will be on Saturday, June 15 from 11am to 12:30. Space is limited, so please register soon (link).  The event is open to all, but preference will be given to AAO paid members. Thank you CVSR!

 

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad adds two vintage locomotives to its fleet

By Kelly Krabill

Published June 20, 2024

 

The Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad is adding two period locomotives to its collection.

 

The new additions are part of a $3 million capital campaign, half of which has been raised so far, “aimed at expanding and preserving the railroad’s collection of vintage locomotives,” according to the press release.

 

Both, a FPA-4 and a FPB-4 locomotive acquired from the Grand Canyon Railway, were manufactured at American Locomotive Company, an American manufacturing company in operation from the beginning of the 20th century into the late 1960s.

 

https://www.wvxu.org/2024-06-20/cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-adds-two-vintage-locomotives-to-its-fleet

From CVSR’s Facebook page, a survey on the downtown Cleveland extension proposal:

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CVSR-NOACA
 

“As you may have read in the news, the Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) is exploring the possibility of extending CVSR service from Rockside Station to Downtown Cleveland. NOACA values your input and would love to hear your thoughts on this potential expansion.

 

By participating in a  survey, you’ll play a crucial role in helping understand the demand for this potential service. Please note that the results of survey will only be shared with NOACA for planning purposes. Additionally,  your name and or email will not be disclosed at any time. 

 

Thank you for your time and input.  

 

Visit https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/CVSR-NOACA to participate in the important survey.

“

 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/gsWi3KwTujt8SMe8/?mibextid=WC7FNe

 

Redirected from the Bedrock riverfront development thread....

 

5 hours ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

Oh that location sucks so bad. Long walks are not good for ridership. If most people are driving to catch the train it defeats the purpose of extending it downtown. 

No. There is no turnaround at either end of the existing CVSR. 

 

Diesel locomotives can operate the same in either direction by activating a reverser switch. But CVSR runs most of its trains with locomotives at both ends. It also has some 1950s-era self-propelled "rail diesel cars" or RDCs. There are modern versions of these called DMUs (Diesel Multiple Units) which I would like to see used by CVSR, but unless CVSR/NPS gets a really big federal grant, it can't afford them. They would be great for commuter service. But CVSR is a bad commuter route. There's no population along it and the NPS doesn't want lots of people driving into the park to catch trains or for anything else. Who would drive down into the park to catch a slow train into downtown? 

 

Instead, CVSR's extension to downtown is to make it easier for more people, especially low-income Clevelanders without cars and school children, to access the national park. Trains through the park are limited to 25 mph top speeds. North of the park (near Rockside Road), the trains might be able to operate faster but not much faster. When B&O train passenger trains on this line, they maxed out at 50 mph. There are many things to slow or stop passenger trains north of Rockside include the at-grade crossings of CSX and NS freight trains at Jennings Crossing, passing CSX's Clark Avenue Yard immediately adjacent to tracks where switching maneuvers are taking place, the lift bridge over the Cuyahoga River and the tight curves north of there into downtown.  

Well, it is a scenic railway, so 25 mph is fine. Although the section through the industrial valley may not be very scenic.

CVSRR new FPA-4's being delivered: 

 

 

On 7/18/2024 at 9:27 AM, LibertyBlvd said:

Well, it is a scenic railway, so 25 mph is fine. Although the section through the industrial valley may not be very scenic.

 

Just a different kind of scenic!  Just like the towpath.

My silly lunchtime procrastination of scrolling Facebook has yet again been rewarded with a gem. Check out this CVSR announcement - this year’s North Pole adventure will depart from Rockside and regular service will return to Rockside beginning in 2025. 

 

CVSR:

“We’ve got a special treat for holiday riders this season - the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad is THRILLED to announce that we’ll be running our North Pole Adventure™ presented by Meijer out of Rockside Station this year! In fact our regular runs will include Rockside Station beginning in 2025. We’ve been waiting patiently, and can’t think of a better way to celebrate.

Learn all about North Pole Adventure™ at www.cvsr.org/npa

Purchase a CVSR membership before August 26th for first day early access to North Pole Adventure™ tickets on September 10 for you and those on your “nice” list!

As a valued CVSR member, you'll enjoy priority access to purchase tickets for our enchanting (and incredibly popular!) North Pole Adventure™ experience. Regardless of your membership level, you'll have the opportunity to purchase your tickets before the general public, ensuring you don't miss out on this classic holiday tradition.

If you register by the 26th, you’ll have your member information in hand for the first day of early access to North Pole Adventure™ tickets on September 10th.

#LetsRideCVSR #CVSR #CuyahogaValleyScenicRailroad #Christmas2024 #CVSRNorthPoleAdventure #NorthPoleAdventure

”

1 hour ago, Boomerang_Brian said:

My silly lunchtime procrastination of scrolling Facebook has yet again been rewarded with a gem. Check out this CVSR announcement - this year’s North Pole adventure will depart from Rockside and regular service will return to Rockside beginning in 2025. 

 

CVSR:

“We’ve got a special treat for holiday riders this season - the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad is THRILLED to announce that we’ll be running our North Pole Adventure™ presented by Meijer out of Rockside Station this year! In fact our regular runs will include Rockside Station beginning in 2025. We’ve been waiting patiently, and can’t think of a better way to celebrate.

Learn all about North Pole Adventure™ at www.cvsr.org/npa

Purchase a CVSR membership before August 26th for first day early access to North Pole Adventure™ tickets on September 10 for you and those on your “nice” list!

As a valued CVSR member, you'll enjoy priority access to purchase tickets for our enchanting (and incredibly popular!) North Pole Adventure™ experience. Regardless of your membership level, you'll have the opportunity to purchase your tickets before the general public, ensuring you don't miss out on this classic holiday tradition.

If you register by the 26th, you’ll have your member information in hand for the first day of early access to North Pole Adventure™ tickets on September 10th.

#LetsRideCVSR #CVSR #CuyahogaValleyScenicRailroad #Christmas2024 #CVSRNorthPoleAdventure #NorthPoleAdventure

”

Has anyone gone on this? Is it worth going on without kids, or is this pretty much purely a for the kids thing? (For context, my girlfriend has always loved the Polar Express). 

1 hour ago, Ethan said:

Has anyone gone on this? Is it worth going on without kids, or is this pretty much purely a for the kids thing? (For context, my girlfriend has always loved the Polar Express). 

 

I took my son on it when he was 5 (he's now 11). He absolutely loved it! Of course I loved it -- it's a train. If you and your girlfriend go, you're going to want to have kids after experiencing it. 😜 It's truly awesome watching kids go nuts over Santa and the whole holidays experience. Check out the looks on my son's face when he sees and sits with Santa....

 

 

Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad names Canadian exec as its next CEO

August 28, 2024

Scott Suttell 

 

 

The nonprofit excursion railroad's board of trustees on Wednesday, Aug. 28, announced that Larry Stevenson will become president and CEO [of the Cuyahoga Valley Scenic Railroad] effective Tuesday, Sept. 3. Stevenson succeeds Joe Mazur, who announced in May that he would retire after seven years of leading CVSR.

 

Stevenson has "over 10 years of executive-level experience and 20 years of rail industry expertise," CVSR said in announcing his hiring. Most recently, he was CEO of the Island Corridor Foundation, a nonprofit organization in Vancouver, Canada. Stevenson in June stepped down from that organization, where he had worked since 2018.

 

At the Vancouver organization, Stevenson "was responsible for the strategy, planning and day-to-day management of a 180-mile rail corridor," CVSR said. It added that his leadership there was "instrumental in revitalizing the organization and securing its relevance and standing with stakeholders, the public and government entities."

 

https://www.crainscleveland.com/transportation/cuyahoga-valley-scenic-railroad-names-larry-stevenson-ceo