Comments on: Is Direct Service the Defining Element of Rail System Success?

By: John W

John W — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 06:43:19 +0000

London–Amsterdam direct may not be too far off:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/7948285/Direct-train-services-to-Germany-move-a-step-closer.html

By: Frank

Frank — Thu, 19 Aug 2010 00:35:55 +0000

A personal note to add to the commentary regarding train changes in Brussels.

I’m researching a trip from London to Amsterdam. I know that Thalys services recently started running over the new HSL Zuid line in the Netherlands cutting an hour off the old 3 hour trip. So I looked up Eurostar/Thalys trip combinations.

First of all, the lack of timing on connections in Brussels means that it’s actually faster to take the local intercity train rather than Thalys, canceling out all of the benefit of the high speed line. The best time provided was over 6 hours, while through-running could allow a trip in under 4.

Second, the pricing of the service varied widely between Eurostar.com (£350!!!) and Hispeed.nl (€108).

I found a flight out of the centrally located London City Airport (22 mins. via DLR from the center of the financial district) for under £100. I love high speed trains, but sadly there’s no advantage to rail on this route as it stands.

By: Jarrett at HumanTransit.org

Jarrett at HumanTransit.org — Sun, 03 Jan 2010 13:24:51 +0000

One more belated note: An additional reason why a mandated change at Bruxelles might cause low patronage London-Koln is that Bruxelles Midi (aka Brussel Zuid) is one of the most depressing and disorienting rail stations in Western Europe.

By: DBX

DBX — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:30:01 +0000

Some cooperation with customs authorities on the cross-border services is also needed. If you go back to the 1960s, CN’s service on the Grand Trunk from Chicago to Toronto involved both US and Canadian border officers boarding the train in Battle Creek and then proceeding to work their way down the train, interviewing everyone and checking IDs and passports. The result? No delay whatsoever at the border. US officials would leave the train in Port Huron and the Canadians in Sarnia, to await the next westbound service. Some similar degree of creativity, if not necessarily the same plan, is needed today in order to help with travel times in situations where you don’t have at least one endpoint next to the border.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:39:23 +0000

Separate services for the US and Canada running nonstop in each other’s countries would surely be less of a ridership killer than forcing people to walk across a bridge on foot. The transfers could be arranged well, if Amtrak and VIA put their minds to it (this would require better schedule adherence, too). For example, if the nonstop-in-Canada Maple Leaf arrived in Niagara Falls, Ontario 20 minutes before the Niagara Falls-to-Toronto service departed, people could transfer relatively easily.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:27:16 +0000

I would note as a side point that if there *were* a pedestrian connection, it would be possible to use it to connect from *existing* VIA service to Niagara Falls to *existing* Amtrak Empire Service to Niagara Falls. This is unreasonable currently *solely* because there is no convenient way of crossing the border near either station.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:24:50 +0000

“Fence off a track with an island platform at one of the Niagara Falls stations,”
That might just work, but the Canadian station is quite constrained in its site, and the US area (for the planned station relocation — the current station is not interesting as a location) has challenging topography which would likely require a lot of earthmoving.

“Another solution: run trains nonstop in either Canada or the US. For example, for Chicago-Toronto service, there could be two stopping patterns, one American train running all-local in the US but stopping only at Toronto and Windsor in Canada, and one Canadian train running all-local in Canada but stopping only at Detroit and Chicago in the US. ”

I would expect that to be a ridership killer. There are people going from the US to “points in Canada” and people going from Canada to “points in the US”. Unless the transfers were very carefully arranged I don’t see how it could be made convenient.

By: Nathanael

Nathanael — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 04:19:28 +0000

“Perhaps in addition to trains terminating either side of the Whirlpool Bridge, there could be NY-Toronto through trains that stopped at neither Niagara Falls station, allowing time for passport checks between Buffalo and St Catharines. Some sort of joint US-Canada station at Niagara would be even better, but would probably pose too many logistical and diplomatic difficulties. Again, the ideal long-term solution (for this and many other issues) would be a Schengen-like US-Canada immigration union.”

I agree with *ALL* of these suggestions. There should be plenty of time for passport control between Buffalo and St. Catharines, and anyone going to or from Niagara Falls can catch one of the other trains and doesn’t need to cross the border by rail. And there’s no reason whatsoever for the US and Canada to retain border control paranoia, but I’m afraid that’s going to be a long, hard process to change.

Regarding Detroit and Windsor, the current Amtrak station is not in a terribly great location — and it’s totally unsuitable for travel from Canada except as a terminus, and not much good as a terminus. And I’ve heard stories implying that the current Windsor station isn’t that great either. The Michigan Central station in Detroit isn’t in a terribly good location either. But I really don’t know how to get a good station location in *either* city without spending a fortune, which is not justified. The built-up environment seems to prevent the railroads from actually getting to downtown.

By: Alon Levy

Alon Levy — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 02:46:13 +0000

Given that there’s already a railroad bridge, why go for pedestrian-based connections, which are proven ridership-killers, when you can have ridership-boosting cross-platform connections?

It’s not hard. Fence off a track with an island platform at one of the Niagara Falls stations, and at one of Detroit and Windsor. Designate that track to be equivalent to the other country’s territory. Have the connecting train stop at the track opposite the fenced off track, on the same platform, with immigration checks in between, and a train from the other country’s rail system waiting across the platform, ready to take in passengers who’ve cleared customs. This allows immigration and customs to take 20 minutes, as it does at border preclearance at Canadian airports, rather than 1:50, as it does on the Maple Leaf.

Another solution: run trains nonstop in either Canada or the US. For example, for Chicago-Toronto service, there could be two stopping patterns, one American train running all-local in the US but stopping only at Toronto and Windsor in Canada, and one Canadian train running all-local in Canada but stopping only at Detroit and Chicago in the US. The American train would stop at fenced-off platforms at Windsor and Toronto, the Canadian train would stop at fenced-off platforms at Detroit and Chicago. People who want to get from an intermediate point to an intermediate point can transfer to a domestic train, which should be timed to provide a transfer time of less than 30 minutes.

By: Anon256

Anon256 — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 23:29:06 +0000

Nathanael: Regarding Windsor and Detroit, by “very close” you mean two miles or more, hardly a reasonable distance to ask people to walk with their luggage (in the snow or rain!), and I don’t know how you could have a reasonable “timed connection” given such distance. If ever the article’s thesis of connections destroying ridership applied, this would be an example. Stations near the Ambassador Bridge would also be fairly difficult to reach from downtown Windsor/Detroit. In this case I think it makes much more sense for trains from Toronto to stop in Windsor near the tunnel portal, run through the tunnel, and terminate at the current Detroit Amtrak station, with customs/immigration in both directions conducted there. Passengers traveling onward to Chicago would still need to connect, but at least passengers for Detroit would not be inconvenienced. Ridership on routes like Toronto-Chicago seems pretty hopeless to me as long as the US and Canada insist on passport checks.

A pedestrian-based connection at Niagara Falls would be slightly less absurd, but still likely very damaging for through-ridership given the statistics in the article. Perhaps in addition to trains terminating either side of the Whirlpool Bridge, there could be NY-Toronto through trains that stopped at neither Niagara Falls station, allowing time for passport checks between Buffalo and St Catharines. Some sort of joint US-Canada station at Niagara would be even better, but would probably pose too many logistical and diplomatic difficulties. Again, the ideal long-term solution (for this and many other issues) would be a Schengen-like US-Canada immigration union.