Ohio rail advocates are once again pushing for the long-discussed 3C+D passenger rail service linking Cincinnati, Dayton, Columbus, and Cleveland. The route sounds ambitious. It isn’t new. These four cities have been connected by rail before. What matters is not the map, but how the service is built.

Long before 3C+D entered the lexicon, the New York Central Railroad operated trains that tied these cities together. The most significant was the Ohio State Limited, introduced on April 27, 1924. It ran between New York City and Cincinnati, but within Ohio it effectively served as a corridor train. Cleveland, Columbus, Springfield, Dayton, and Cincinnati were linked on a daily basis. The routing differed somewhat from today’s proposal, but the core cities were the same.

The Ohio State Limited relied on conventional equipment and locomotive crews already knew how to maintain. Cars could be added or removed as demand shifted. Improvements came gradually rather than through wholesale redesign. It remained a named train until December 2, 1967, with portions of its Cleveland-to-Cincinnati service lasting until May 1, 1971. Through decades that saw enormous changes in American transportation, it kept running. That endurance was not accidental. The service fit into a larger network and allowed room for adjustment.

By the 1950s, however, the country was changing quickly. Automobile ownership was widespread, suburban growth was accelerating, and federal transportation policy favored highways. Airlines were drawing long-distance passengers away from the rails. Railroads were still private companies, competing against publicly funded infrastructure. Passenger service increasingly looked like a financial burden.

In that climate, the New York Central tried something bold. On June 3, 1956, it introduced the New York Central Xplorer. Unlike the Ohio State Limited, the Xplorer was built specifically as an Ohio corridor train, running only between Cleveland and Cincinnati, with stops in Columbus and Dayton.

The Xplorer was not a refinement. It was a reset. Management believed traditional passenger trains were too heavy and too costly to compete with cars on short routes. The solution was a lightweight, tightly integrated train designed for efficiency. The railroad ordered articulated aluminum cars permanently connected into a single trainset. Power came from an experimental diesel-hydraulic locomotive, the Baldwin RP-210, built specifically for this service. The concept promised faster acceleration, lower operating costs, and a modern alternative to driving.

The design worked on paper. In practice, it exposed the limits of specialization. The lightweight articulated cars produced a ride many passengers found rough on existing track. The unfamiliar diesel-hydraulic systems complicated maintenance. If something failed, standard equipment could not simply replace it. Because the train was permanently coupled, capacity adjustments were difficult and removing one problematic car disrupted the entire consist. The ambition behind the Xplorer was real. So were the constraints it created. After just over a year, the service ended. The cities had not changed. What failed was a design that left too little room for adaptation.

For a brief period in the mid-1950s, the Ohio State Limited and the Xplorer operated at the same time. The railroad was not moving from one model to another; it was testing two approaches on the same corridor.

One emphasized flexibility within a broader system. The other emphasized optimization within a closed one. The difference was not that one was long-distance and the other a corridor train. The difference was how much room each allowed for change.

With 3C+D on the horizon, it’s important that we as advocates look to the past to ensure a better future. Both of its predecessors left blueprints for what should be replicated and what should be improved- only time will tell if 3rd time’s the charm.