Only the long trip around the Lower Peninsula by boat.CSX_CO wrote:If you're going by boat to Toledo like you describe, why wouldn't you just go by boat all the way to Chicago? Or am I missing something?
Otherwise, no, nothing at all.
Only the long trip around the Lower Peninsula by boat.CSX_CO wrote:If you're going by boat to Toledo like you describe, why wouldn't you just go by boat all the way to Chicago? Or am I missing something?
How horribly inefficient and expensive to transload your cargo unnecessarily.MQT3001 wrote:I know that there was at least one company who advertised a water route on Lake Erie and then rails from Toledo to Chicago, before lines were built across northern Ohio. It didn't last that long, but it was offered while that gap existed.
No need to do all that 'work' by then. Erie Canal across New York to Lake Erie from the Hudson River, then all water to Chicago. Part of the reason Chicago took off was because it was on the Illinois and Michigan Canal (before that on the portage between the two) and the hogs, grain, and lumber from the 'northern plains' could funnel there for transport to the east coast markets, or down the canal to the Mississippi, and the southern ports. There is a full 20 years of all water access from Chicago to the east coast before the first railroad even made it into Chicago. First railroad to Chicago didn't reach it from the east until 1852, and by January of 1853 you could go all rail between Chicago and New York City. Galena and Chicago Union served as a funnel for the agricultural and mineral wealth of NW Illinois to be funneled to the port of Chicago, not to any other railroad connections. The Erie Canal is what opened up the interior 'bread basket' to the eastern markets. Became economically feasible to ship 'raw' grain east, rather than having to convert it into something easier to transport.MQT3001 wrote:Well, when you lived in the 1830s and 40s I guess it wasn't so bad.
Very inefficient. But look at railroads in the mid nineteenth century. There was no standardization between roads. Track gauge, coupling systems, brake systems were mostly different. Probably was no difference in their mind; transload on another train or onto a boat. The only scenario that I can see that would need to jump between rail and boat like that is if the northern half of Huron and Michigan were frozen over but the southern half was clear as well as Erie. A twelve car train was big in those days, and you could fit a few "trains" on the right boat. Thank god things have advanced.CSX_CO wrote:How horribly inefficient and expensive to transload your cargo unnecessarily.MQT3001 wrote:I know that there was at least one company who advertised a water route on Lake Erie and then rails from Toledo to Chicago, before lines were built across northern Ohio. It didn't last that long, but it was offered while that gap existed.
Practice Safe CSX
If you tried having this same conversation with someone from the time period when the Car Ferries were in their prime I bet this would have a totally different outcome.EWRice wrote:Very inefficient. But look at railroads in the mid nineteenth century. There was no standardization between roads. Track gauge, coupling systems, brake systems were mostly different. Probably was no difference in their mind; transload on another train or onto a boat. The only scenario that I can see that would need to jump between rail and boat like that is if the northern half of Huron and Michigan were frozen over but the southern half was clear as well as Erie. A twelve car train was big in those days, and you could fit a few "trains" on the right boat. Thank god things have advanced.CSX_CO wrote:How horribly inefficient and expensive to transload your cargo unnecessarily.MQT3001 wrote:I know that there was at least one company who advertised a water route on Lake Erie and then rails from Toledo to Chicago, before lines were built across northern Ohio. It didn't last that long, but it was offered while that gap existed.
Practice Safe CSX
I would like to know how much more it is to make the tracks east of Marne available for a ride. Could offer a short ride to Marne and a long ride to GR or something like that. I know it has something to due with insurance and apparently some serious tie replacement would have to go down before it could be used that much. Something about the ties being hollow.DLM wrote:The Coopersville and Marne volunteers had dreams of rebuilding to the west in the early years. Other than maybe a more scenic ride, there is no reason or money to build west even if you could reclaim the right of way.
Yes I know I am in 100% fantasyland. I am a dreamer. I know that they barely get by. This whole thread (although off course) has been "What ifs".MQT3001 wrote:Track east of Marne is classed as excepted.
Max, in all seriousness, you're in 100% fantasyland out here with all these ifs. To be brutally honest, they struggle to maintain what they have, much less expand.
Shouldn't it be in the "paper railroads" section then?MQT1223 wrote: Yes I know I am in 100% fantasyland. I am a dreamer. I know that they barely get by. This whole thread (although off course) has been "What ifs".
Probably...Max, you can reinstall the line to GH and run 4-8-8-4 steam excursions if you like. Been there, done thatJ T wrote:Shouldn't it be in the "paper railroads" section then?MQT1223 wrote: Yes I know I am in 100% fantasyland. I am a dreamer. I know that they barely get by. This whole thread (although off course) has been "What ifs".
MQT3001 wrote:Probably...Max, you can reinstall the line to GH and run 4-8-8-4 steam excursions if you like. Been there, done thatJ T wrote:Shouldn't it be in the "paper railroads" section then?MQT1223 wrote: Yes I know I am in 100% fantasyland. I am a dreamer. I know that they barely get by. This whole thread (although off course) has been "What ifs".
Ehhh, I was more looking for history on the line west of Coopersville because, when I was talking to Alex one day I was thinking about doing an Abandoned Series on youtube that highlights abandoned Railway Lines in Michigan when I find them. When I say abandoned I mean truly abandoned. It's not a walking trail, it hasn't been developed over, its basically untouched since the railroad left it.J T wrote:Shouldn't it be in the "paper railroads" section then?MQT1223 wrote: Yes I know I am in 100% fantasyland. I am a dreamer. I know that they barely get by. This whole thread (although off course) has been "What ifs".
Those fantasies are from 4 1/2 years agokd_1014 wrote:TBH I'm thinking of making this line 110 MPH because you might as well throw that in there with all of these very fantasy ideas...
Remember, you're in Michigan (pronounced M-i-t-t-e-n) and in wintertime, the norther portion of the lakes would often freeze over completely, as was common during the 1800's. During that time of year, trains were it. Plus, the Soo locks were not built till 1855, and were relatively small, thus keeping more of this traffic on the RR's. Then when the locks were built, high-volume traffic from Duluth & Thunder Bay to ports at Chicago & Toledo, and beyond, shifted almost entirely to boats. Railroads were able to build their fortunes on the traffic between these ports until then (though they were still able to move passengers), as it was much faster than via ship. Once the RR's built west of Toledo, they became a serious competitor to ships, as they were faster, and could deliver right to the customer's plant. But, ships are cheaper, if you don't care about speed.CSX_CO wrote:If you're going by boat to Toledo like you describe, why wouldn't you just go by boat all the way to Chicago? Or am I missing something?