You always know a document will be a great read when it has pages labelled as "intentionally left blank"
[quote=""The Study""]Once the charter train capability has been firmly established then it should be possible to set up some
trial runs to test the market for regularly scheduled service. This could be finally followed by the implementation of regular scheduled service on a basis that makes commercial sense. [/quote]
Detractors call the Illinois Chicago-Quad Cities project the "Cornfield Rocket". That route at least has some merits. This route doesn't. I propose we call it "A best attempt at solving a problem that doesn't exist, with taxpayer funds".
[quote=""The Study""]Starting a scheduled service will likely require the installation of a Positive Train Control (PTC) system. Scheduled service carries with it a higher degree of commercial risk than does charter or excursion operation, and as well it puts the railroad into a position of taking on a public service obligation. For this reason it is likely that some degree of public support (subsidy) will be needed for starting a scheduled service. [/quote]
Change likely to will, and scratch out "commercial risk" and replace it with "taxpayer burden".
[quote=""The Study""]So, a track connection needs to be provided in Ann Arbor to enable direct service to Detroit.[/quote]
It cannot be understated how terrible that geometry is. The two lines were not designed to be connected in the way suggested. It's pretty easy to take a map and draw a line.
We're talking about 25' of elevation loss in about 1600' of track. That's not insurmountable. But boy will the wheels be singing you the song of their people on that curve. I'm sure Ann Arborites will love the new bridge over their whitewater park, all the new piers. Gasp - we can't forget the fish and the blue-spotted-right-footed frog. Lord help them.
[quote=""The Study""]Typically, a track upgrade above 60-mph would entail rail welding or rail replacement, along with new ties and ballast. Curve spirals would be adjusted to provide smooth transitions, and all public crossings would have active protection installed if they could not be closed.[/quote]
Harder to make it sound any easier. Doesn't actually make it any easier. What are ribbons of 133RE going for these days?
[quote=""The Study""]To reach this [Traverse City] station, arriving trains would have to pull past the station across the Boardman River rail bridge, and only then reverse into the station. This would be a time consuming and tedious movement.[/quote]
I wish these people did the study for the new Grand Rapids Station.
[quote=""The Study""]Therefore, as shown in Exhibit 2-6, a short (1½ mile) connection track south of Boardman Lake (past Beitner Park) could connect the former PRR line to the ex-Pere Marquette along the west shore of Boardman Lake. By taking this approach the train could pull directly into the station and continue directly to Williamsburg without reversing direction. [/quote]
But the blue-spotted-right-footed frogs!
The study goes on a lot longer but I'm bored. I'll classify this one as a "you can't be serious?" type of study.
Traverse City seems to think of itself as a large metropolis. It isn't. It's time for them to realize this. As an alternative to trying to drum up this hilarious scheme, just add more lanes to the local highways.
It's high time US 131 was completed as a freeway through to a junction with I-75. Add a branch to Traverse City and consider the problem solved. It'll be useful to all people instead of a few, probably see higher farebox in terms of traffic volumes driving fuel tax and registration receipts, and actually solve a problem.