Very good analysis here, good read.....especially about the part on not trusting what the host railroad says it will cost them.
http://www.allaboardmn.org/?m=201601
Finally a rail passenger advocacy group that cuts through the BS from both the Railroads and Railfan community and gets down to business.
Some forward-looking thinking, breaking from the usual "let's do X because we've always done so." You can really see that in dropping some traditional stops that generate few riders but consume a lot of time. Set the SPUD-CHI goal at 400 minutes.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I can appreciate that they want to eliminate lightly used stops. However, when MDOT said it would make all the stops of the Empire Builder, those towns will not rereat. They would have to show that cost savings would outweigh the political fallout from cancelling those stops.
Adding more frequency sounds good, but they lost me at the overnight trip.
MidlandMikepolitical fallout from cancelling those stops.
How much fallout is there from towns with populations totaling <18,000 and light boardings for all three (Columbus, the Dells and Portage)? Choose one to keep. Tomah has 9,000 and Red Wing 16,000. Maybe keep Red Wing, though boardings are only 10,000.
MidlandMike I can appreciate that they want to eliminate lightly used stops. However, when MDOT said it would make all the stops of the Empire Builder, those towns will not rereat. They would have to show that cost savings would outweigh the political fallout from cancelling those stops. Adding more frequency sounds good, but they lost me at the overnight trip.
I have ridden the route only like 2-3 times and that was before 2000. This external group is attempt to influence MDOT's thinking and hopefully WisDOT as well.
What I find encouraging is.........
1. They recognize the utility of an overnight train.....yaaay!
2. They recognize that Amtrak stoping 2-3 times at one stop because of length of train at a short platform stop (Columbus) is both stupid and time wasteful. You know Amtrak Management here should ask Columbus to pay for an extended platform or yank the stop......really that is what should happen here.
3. They recognize these smaller stops slow the train for everyone else but add little in the way of revenue or potential growth.
4. They recognize that the one additional train is part of a broader plan to add 2-3 more trains, so they want a realignment with the first one.
5. They are actually looking at population density and % of metro market served (this is why they want to extend to MSP and why they want a West Milwaukee station in Pewaukee, WI). I had not realized that Amtrak by only stopping in St. Paul is really only serving 33% of the Twin Cities market.
6. They aren't just swallowing the Class I railroad cost projections for the additional service, they are digging a little deeper on them (for once). I suspected all along that some of these were overly inflated. Same with the Amtrak cost projections. For example they are correct to conclude that $8 million for a new Siemens locomotive that can do 125 mph on track that has a max limit of 79-90 mph is overkill and that a leased locomotive that was newly rebuilt would be a much cheaper alternative. They should also question how Amtrak came to the conclusion that it needs 5 bi-level brand new corridor cars to cover this service? Where did they conclude the ridership would warrant that? They did conclude rightly that Amtrak had not included any spare cars in it's projections. You know these are the things that make folks start to wonder about Amtrak Management and how intelligent it is.
As far as equipment goes isn't there a company that owns a fleet of ex-SF hi-level coaches? IIRC they were one of the bidders to run the HOOSIER STATE. If this company does exist how many cars do they have and where are they stored?
As far as rehabbed equipment goes, I recall CMStPnP posting pictures of ex-MILW passenger equipment (made in their own shops) sitting somewhere in Arkansas at a dealer.
CMStPnP MidlandMike I can appreciate that they want to eliminate lightly used stops. However, when MDOT said it would make all the stops of the Empire Builder, those towns will not rereat. They would have to show that cost savings would outweigh the political fallout from cancelling those stops. Adding more frequency sounds good, but they lost me at the overnight trip. I have ridden the route only like 2-3 times and that was before 2000. This external group is attempt to influence MDOT's thinking and hopefully WisDOT as well. What I find encouraging is......... 1. They recognize the utility of an overnight train.....yaaay! 2. They recognize that Amtrak stoping 2-3 times at one stop because of length of train at a short platform stop (Columbus) is both stupid and time wasteful. You know Amtrak Management here should ask Columbus to pay for an extended platform or yank the stop......really that is what should happen here. 3. They recognize these smaller stops slow the train for everyone else but add little in the way of revenue or potential growth. 4. They recognize that the one additional train is part of a broader plan to add 2-3 more trains, so they want a realignment with the first one. 5. They are actually looking at population density and % of metro market served (this is why they want to extend to MSP and why they want a West Milwaukee station in Pewaukee, WI). I had not realized that Amtrak by only stopping in St. Paul is really only serving 33% of the Twin Cities market. 6. They aren't just swallowing the Class I railroad cost projections for the additional service, they are digging a little deeper on them (for once). I suspected all along that some of these were overly inflated. Same with the Amtrak cost projections. For example they are correct to conclude that $8 million for a new Siemens locomotive that can do 125 mph on track that has a max limit of 79-90 mph is overkill and that a leased locomotive that was newly rebuilt would be a much cheaper alternative. They should also question how Amtrak came to the conclusion that it needs 5 bi-level brand new corridor cars to cover this service? Where did they conclude the ridership would warrant that? They did conclude rightly that Amtrak had not included any spare cars in it's projections. You know these are the things that make folks start to wonder about Amtrak Management and how intelligent it is.
As I indicated in my original post, I don't dispute the rational logic of the passenger advocacy group concerning the small stops. It's just that it does not have a realistic chance in the political arena that will decide this government sponsored service.
A. Unless the advocacy group makes political contributions to the legislators, they have no political standing.
B. MDOT does have some political standing, and they have already said all stops are in.
C. Any towns losing service, despite their small size, will react as if the loss is an existential threat, and will have the most political effect on the legislators. Passenger service is hardly on the radar of the pols, and it's almost a no brainer to them to go along with the aggrieved voters. While some of the citizens of the big cities may prefer to bypass the small stops, they will not pushback long against the zeal of the towns losing service.
On your point number (1.), I think you left out the "f" in "utility", as in "utility of an overnight (7 hour?) train... "
MidlandMikeAs I indicated in my original post, I don't dispute the rational logic of the passenger advocacy group concerning the small stops. It's just that it does not have a realistic chance in the political arena that will decide this government sponsored service. A. Unless the advocacy group makes political contributions to the legislators, they have no political standing. B. MDOT does have some political standing, and they have already said all stops are in. C. Any towns losing service, despite their small size, will react as if the loss is an existential threat, and will have the most political effect on the legislators. Passenger service is hardly on the radar of the pols, and it's almost a no brainer to them to go along with the aggrieved voters. While some of the citizens of the big cities may prefer to bypass the small stops, they will not pushback long against the zeal of the towns losing service. On your point number (1.), I think you left out the "f" in "utility", as in "utility of an overnight (7 hour?) train... "
Wow, thats pretty negative.....
I don't look at the world that way and never have. I look at the world where each of us can make a difference with just a little effort and I don't view it as "events already set in motion there is nothing we can do about it" Myself I am a pretty persuasive letter writer and even at one point changed the direction of an entire Army Division (imagine that) via a little persuasive letter to it's General. Also, in the Army I wrote letters on behalf of Amnesty International on Army letterhead no less, much to the chagrin of my peers, seeking the release of a largely unknown poet in the West at the time whose name was Vaclav Havel.........who later was released in part due to the letters and became the PM of the Czech Republic. I know I had a impact there because Mr. Havel was gracious enough to both compose a Thank you letter to the Amnesty International letter writers group and to describe the positive impact it had on his living conditions while he was in jail amongst his Communist jailers. I have changed a lot in the current city in Texas where I live just by writing letters, helping out key City officials, making suggestions others have not considered. What it boils down to is what world do you want to live in. I choose to live in a world where I participate.
As to this specific project, your incorrect. Both MDOT and WisDOT are looking for public input beyond what the online cities want. I have already communicated my input to the project and my Email was recieved and acknowledged. Amtrak also wants to hear from it's riders and it is specifically why it has established a rider advocacy council that meets once a month and takes letters from Amtrak riders for review and consideration at meetings. You can believe it or doubt it, it is up to you I guess.
However as far as I am concerned, I have already seen the impact with my letter writing efforts across a broad area of interest. Pretty sure I have an impact based on what I have both seen and read. Lets say I am completely ignored in the case of this project......at least I tried and there are always future projects along the same corridor where they will once again seek input.
schlimm As far as rehabbed equipment goes, I recall CMStPnP posting pictures of ex-MILW passenger equipment (made in their own shops) sitting somewhere in Arkansas at a dealer.
Ozark Mountain Rail Co.......Milwaukee Road Coaches....
He-he-he-he, that stuff needs a LOT of tender loving care to bring it up to Amtrak Standards but I would ride it any day of the week over the rolling bauble bodied tin can from Spain (Talgo).
BTW, did you guys read the legal settlement between Wisconsin and Talgo. It reads something like this: "State of Wisconsin agrees to pay Talgo 7.5 million (I forgot the figure but think it was this amount) for the production of the Talgo trains in return the Talgo company agrees to pay the State of Wisconsin 7.5 million out of the revenues of the sale of the equipment to any other buyer"
What kind of settlement is that? Lol? In other words if Talgo sells the equipment and gets at least 7.5 million.........Wisconsin doesn't lose a penny.
And Talgo is still grumbling about how the price of the trains wasn't really the price of the trains but was discounted because they took into account the 50 year lease or whatever on the maintenence base Milwaukee was to build, blah, blah, blah. You know what, even if that were true, why didn't they have that in the contract written down and calculated in case of cancellation? Why was not there? Oh yeah because it was a no bid contract for the train and they were low balling the price to make the train look more palitable when compared with two other competitors.
I still think that an overnighter is a mistake since it implies a write-off of a realistic service to the intermediate stops. A morning and an afternoon day train is probably the best approach since it provides a start at providing a real service to more than just the endpoints.
The stations in question, Columbus, the Dells, Tomah and Portage are only stops in the proposal because they always have been. Like they do in so many domains, Amtrak "plans" for the future by just doing the same ol. A rational examination shows that the populations and ridership currently do not support continuance of any, with the possible exception of Columbus. One would think the Dells stop would be busy in the summer but currently it isn't.
CSSHEGEWISCH I still think that an overnighter is a mistake since it implies a write-off of a realistic service to the intermediate stops. A morning and an afternoon day train is probably the best approach since it provides a start at providing a real service to more than just the endpoints.
The answer I got was they are giving priority to the day trains first but consider that an overnighter having run before in the corridor is a topic they might need to look at again. The Minnesota Advocacy Group stated the same position.
A train that departs after Dinner from Chicago and arrives before breakfest in the Twin Cities does not need a Dining Car .... or a Dining Car staff. It can suffice with a snack bar or less. Can skip most of the intermediate stops (stations do not need to be staffed into the early a.m.). Has much more flexibility timewise with arrival in the Twin Cities eroding the Class I complaints they need to add more track. Just need sleepers and coaches and I even pointed out if they designed a decent long distance or overnight coaches it could be pulled off with just long distance coaches. Then the trainset would be avialable to use for a RT in the day departing from the Twin Cities as long as it was back in time to depart for Chicago after dinner from the Twin Cities. Thus an overnight train can really have most of the labor costs stripped from it's P&L because most of the passengers on board are sleeping or preparing to. Though if it was up to me I would definitely have a sight-seer lounge or dome car serving alcholic drinks as well as light snacks in the evening and just light snacks in the morning with coffee.
CMStPnP CSSHEGEWISCH I still think that an overnighter is a mistake since it implies a write-off of a realistic service to the intermediate stops. A morning and an afternoon day train is probably the best approach since it provides a start at providing a real service to more than just the endpoints. The answer I got was they are giving priority to the day trains first but consider that an overnighter having run before in the corridor is a topic they might need to look at again. The Minnesota Advocacy Group stated the same position. A train that departs after Dinner from Chicago and arrives before breakfest in the Twin Cities does not need a Dining Car .... or a Dining Car staff. It can suffice with a snack bar or less. Can skip most of the intermediate stops (stations do not need to be staffed into the early a.m.). Has much more flexibility timewise with arrival in the Twin Cities eroding the Class I complaints they need to add more track. Just need sleepers and coaches and I even pointed out if they designed a decent long distance or overnight coaches it could be pulled off with just long distance coaches. Then the trainset would be avialable to use for a RT in the day departing from the Twin Cities as long as it was back in time to depart for Chicago after dinner from the Twin Cities. Thus an overnight train can really have most of the labor costs stripped from it's P&L because most of the passengers on board are sleeping or preparing to.
A train that departs after Dinner from Chicago and arrives before breakfest in the Twin Cities does not need a Dining Car .... or a Dining Car staff. It can suffice with a snack bar or less. Can skip most of the intermediate stops (stations do not need to be staffed into the early a.m.). Has much more flexibility timewise with arrival in the Twin Cities eroding the Class I complaints they need to add more track. Just need sleepers and coaches and I even pointed out if they designed a decent long distance or overnight coaches it could be pulled off with just long distance coaches. Then the trainset would be avialable to use for a RT in the day departing from the Twin Cities as long as it was back in time to depart for Chicago after dinner from the Twin Cities. Thus an overnight train can really have most of the labor costs stripped from it's P&L because most of the passengers on board are sleeping or preparing to.
The upgraded business class coach would work well on this route since it should attract a decent number of business folks if planned and marketed properly.
schlimmOne would think the Dells stop would be busy in the summer but currently it isn't.
Partially the fault of Amtrak for not selling vacation packages there. The Milwaukee Road did when it ran the trains AND it is a resort area. Also, partially the fault of the Dells for not promoting the rail option among visitors and more so in it's advertisements. Both areas could be fixed with a little Amtrak management attention.
Columbus doesn't only draw passengers from Madison. It also draws passengers from northeastern Wisconsin (Fox Valley) using Hwy 151 to get there; particularly those traveling from and to the west on the Builder.
Me thinks they should just upgrade the Madison to Watertown segment and dip down to Madison from the junction in Portage and change the route to Portage - Madison - Sun Prarie........rejoin the main at Watertown. The Madison - Watertown portion is state owned anyways and leased to WSOR. Yes it is a longer route but they would boost ridership enough to offset the small time increase and perhaps they could upgrade Watertown to Madison enough to recapture some lost time over the more Northern route. They would also still retain Wisconsin Dells as a stop but it would take a little longer to get there from Milwaukee but then they would also add Madison to Wisconsin Dells as a travel segment in addition to Milwaukee - Wisconsin Dells.
Plus I think shifting the cooridor trains off the mainline between Watertown and Portage might give CP more operational breathing room.
Gramp Columbus doesn't only draw passengers from Madison. It also draws passengers from northeastern Wisconsin (Fox Valley) using Hwy 151 to get there; particularly those traveling from and to the west on the Builder.
Columbus had ridership (boardings + alightings) in 2015 of only 12,906.
The Dells...13,240.
Portage.......6,116
Tomah......10,300
The goal is a corridor service with a competitive (with roads) 7 hour time maximum. Those 4 stops add 35-45 minutes to the total with little added patronage. Adding Madison makes sense because it is a large metro area, it's the capital and it has 43,000 students, many of whom might become riders. Adding Sturtevant makes sense to serve the populous north suburban and Kenosha areas. Passenger trains need to be about serving markets (people) not a few voters.
CMStPnP MidlandMike As I indicated in my original post, I don't dispute the rational logic of the passenger advocacy group concerning the small stops. It's just that it does not have a realistic chance in the political arena that will decide this government sponsored service. A. Unless the advocacy group makes political contributions to the legislators, they have no political standing. B. MDOT does have some political standing, and they have already said all stops are in. C. Any towns losing service, despite their small size, will react as if the loss is an existential threat, and will have the most political effect on the legislators. Passenger service is hardly on the radar of the pols, and it's almost a no brainer to them to go along with the aggrieved voters. While some of the citizens of the big cities may prefer to bypass the small stops, they will not pushback long against the zeal of the towns losing service. On your point number (1.), I think you left out the "f" in "utility", as in "utility of an overnight (7 hour?) train... " Wow, thats pretty negative..... ... However as far as I am concerned, I have already seen the impact with my letter writing efforts across a broad area of interest. Pretty sure I have an impact based on what I have both seen and read. Lets say I am completely ignored in the case of this project......at least I tried and there are always future projects along the same corridor where they will once again seek input.
MidlandMike As I indicated in my original post, I don't dispute the rational logic of the passenger advocacy group concerning the small stops. It's just that it does not have a realistic chance in the political arena that will decide this government sponsored service. A. Unless the advocacy group makes political contributions to the legislators, they have no political standing. B. MDOT does have some political standing, and they have already said all stops are in. C. Any towns losing service, despite their small size, will react as if the loss is an existential threat, and will have the most political effect on the legislators. Passenger service is hardly on the radar of the pols, and it's almost a no brainer to them to go along with the aggrieved voters. While some of the citizens of the big cities may prefer to bypass the small stops, they will not pushback long against the zeal of the towns losing service. On your point number (1.), I think you left out the "f" in "utility", as in "utility of an overnight (7 hour?) train... "
...
Thats great that interested parties write letters with their concerns. However, the citizens in the towns that would lose service will get much more sympathy from the politicians, than advocates for eliminating stops to save a little time. The citizens in the towns that could keep their service from being eliminated probably would not look at this as a negative thing.
schlimm CMStPnP CSSHEGEWISCH I still think that an overnighter is a mistake since it implies a write-off of a realistic service to the intermediate stops. A morning and an afternoon day train is probably the best approach since it provides a start at providing a real service to more than just the endpoints. The answer I got was they are giving priority to the day trains first but consider that an overnighter having run before in the corridor is a topic they might need to look at again. The Minnesota Advocacy Group stated the same position. A train that departs after Dinner from Chicago and arrives before breakfest in the Twin Cities does not need a Dining Car .... or a Dining Car staff. It can suffice with a snack bar or less. Can skip most of the intermediate stops (stations do not need to be staffed into the early a.m.). Has much more flexibility timewise with arrival in the Twin Cities eroding the Class I complaints they need to add more track. Just need sleepers and coaches and I even pointed out if they designed a decent long distance or overnight coaches it could be pulled off with just long distance coaches. Then the trainset would be avialable to use for a RT in the day departing from the Twin Cities as long as it was back in time to depart for Chicago after dinner from the Twin Cities. Thus an overnight train can really have most of the labor costs stripped from it's P&L because most of the passengers on board are sleeping or preparing to. The upgraded business class coach would work well on this route since it should attract a decent number of business folks if planned and marketed properly.
Now let me get this straight... You are suggesting that business men will wait up at SPUD until about midnight, then sit up all night until they arrive in Chicago at 7AM. And you think that some might find this preferable to taking a plane the night before an getting a good night sleep in a Chicago hotel, or just taking an early AM flight the day of the trip?
MidlandMikeThats great that interested parties write letters with their concerns. However, the citizens in the towns that would lose service will get much more sympathy from the politicians, than advocates for eliminating stops to save a little time. The citizens in the towns that could keep their service from being eliminated probably would not look at this as a negative thing.
Well first is NEW service it is not EXISTING service. So I am not sure why your referring to losing service, nobody is losing anything. Empire Builder would still run on same schedule. It is only the new trains they are talking about revised stops and schedules.
Your assumptions are not supported by historical facts.
1. North Star was added and nobody complained about dropped stations between MSP and Chicago. So historical precedent there on not every city wanting to be on the schedule. Prior to that when it was the Arrowhead they dropped stations between MSP and Duluth and not a lot of objection based on what I read.
2. While I did not look at all the years of operation in 1977 Amtrak considered the MSP to Dulth route profitable in 1977 on a short term aviodable cost basis. In fact it's performance in Passenger Miles / Train Miles beat a whole slew of Northeastern trains running at the time and even had a better ridership ratio then each of the Chicago to Milwaukee trains.
3. Also, historically the North Star had decent ridership Chicago to MSP but it ran with a sleeper and cafe car (no diner). As far as businessmen using the train instead of the plane. Plane service between MSP and MKE was a whole lot different in 1970's (regulated and very expensive) and 1980's (cheaper as deregulation took hold) than it is now....so that is something that would need to be looked at. I would say some business people would use it because it would mean more time with their families and because of the air service today is more limited, potentially the train might do better with business travelers. It's 3-4 hours each end now to fly with the drive to the airport security and wait for the plane. Total train time 7-8 hours which is competitive with flying and driving and thats only at 79 mph in parts of the route. Remember it's not just CHI to STP market we are competing with, also MKE-STP and MAD-STP the latter two of which the train would be very competitive.
CSStPnP, since the Northstar was a night train, it does not suprise me that towns along the way were not insistant on having the opportunity to board it in the wee hours of the morning. If they now are to start a daylight corridor train, then this is a new service, compaired with a sometimes hours late LD train stoping at very inconvenient times. The time to start experimenting with bypassing stops is when there is adaquate frequency.
I presume the Northstar was an overnight train with sleepers because the trip from Duluth to Chicago was a little too long to comfortably fit as a daylight train. As you point out the train was popular, but (that was) with sleepers. So I am not sure what historical facts you are using to support your coach only overnight train. As a railfan, I would take a daylight train MSP-CHI, but there is no way I would consider sitting up all night vs flying, if there was no daylight option.
CMStPnP Wow, thats pretty negative..... I don't look at the world that way and never have. I look at the world where each of us can make a difference with just a little effort and I don't view it as "events already set in motion there is nothing we can do about it" Myself I am a pretty persuasive letter writer and even at one point changed the direction of an entire Army Division (imagine that) via a little persuasive letter to it's General. Also, in the Army I wrote letters on behalf of Amnesty International on Army letterhead no less, much to the chagrin of my peers, seeking the release of a largely unknown poet in the West at the time whose name was Vaclav Havel.........who later was released in part due to the letters and became the PM of the Czech Republic. I know I had a impact there because Mr. Havel was gracious enough to both compose a Thank you letter to the Amnesty International letter writers group and to describe the positive impact it had on his living conditions while he was in jail amongst his Communist jailers. I have changed a lot in the current city in Texas where I live just by writing letters, helping out key City officials, making suggestions others have not considered. What it boils down to is what world do you want to live in. I choose to live in a world where I participate. As to this specific project, your incorrect. Both MDOT and WisDOT are looking for public input beyond what the online cities want. I have already communicated my input to the project and my Email was recieved and acknowledged. Amtrak also wants to hear from it's riders and it is specifically why it has established a rider advocacy council that meets once a month and takes letters from Amtrak riders for review and consideration at meetings. You can believe it or doubt it, it is up to you I guess. However as far as I am concerned, I have already seen the impact with my letter writing efforts across a broad area of interest. Pretty sure I have an impact based on what I have both seen and read. Lets say I am completely ignored in the case of this project......at least I tried and there are always future projects along the same corridor where they will once again seek input.
As to this specific project, I am only saying what has been reported in this thread, that they plan to go with all the present EB stops. Yes the public rail agencies are looking for public input, to identify problems, and build consensus. Writing letters in support of an idea whose time has come moves things forward. However, until they up the frequencies in the MSP-CHI corridor, the time has not come yet to eliminate stops. The (express) passenger advocacy group seems to have indicated they want to eliminate the small stops from the start, because they think it will be easier than trying to eliminate them after people get used to them. This is manipulative, and negative to any idea that people can be reasonable to incremental change. Once frequencies are appropriate, then it will be time for the rail agency to reason with the small towns as to why every train won't make their stop, and for those towns to show any overriding reason why they should continue.
MidlandMikeHowever, until they up the frequencies in the MSP-CHI corridor, the time has not come yet to eliminate stops. The (express) passenger advocacy group seems to have indicated they want to eliminate the small stops from the start, because they think it will be easier than trying to eliminate them after people get used to them. This is manipulative, and negative to any idea that people can be reasonable to incremental change.
I fail to follow the logic there.
Currently:
Portage has an eastbound at 12:27 pm, wb @ 5:31 pm yet only generated 6,116 boardings+alightings (8.38 people per day).
Tomah has an eb @ 11:26 am, wb @ 6:27 pm with 10,300 (14.1).
The Dells has an eb @ 12:08 pm, wb @ 5:49 pm with 13,240 (18.1).
Those are generally good times, yet those towns don't use the train. This is a 2nd train. Those poorly patronized stops lose nothing. If a 2nd day train is added, it needs to manage the end points in under 7 hours to be competitive. It would still serve MKE, LaCrosse and later MAD as intermediate points in WI because they have populations to serve.
It seems we often lose sight of the point of passenger rail. Just like freight, it is to serve sufficiently large markets. If one does not meet the criteria, the freight lines exit.
schlimm MidlandMike However, until they up the frequencies in the MSP-CHI corridor, the time has not come yet to eliminate stops. The (express) passenger advocacy group seems to have indicated they want to eliminate the small stops from the start, because they think it will be easier than trying to eliminate them after people get used to them. This is manipulative, and negative to any idea that people can be reasonable to incremental change. I fail to follow the logic there. Currently: Portage has an eastbound at 12:27 pm, wb @ 5:31 pm yet only generated 6,116 boardings+alightings (8.38 people per day). Tomah has an eb @ 11:26 am, wb @ 6:27 pm with 10,300 (14.1). The Dells has an eb @ 12:08 pm, wb @ 5:49 pm with 13,240 (18.1). Those are generally good times, yet those towns don't use the train. This is a 2nd train. Those poorly patronized stops lose nothing. If a 2nd day train is added, it needs to manage the end points in under 7 hours to be competitive. It would still serve MKE, LaCrosse and later MAD as intermediate points in WI because they have populations to serve. It seems we often lose sight of the point of passenger rail. Just like freight, it is to serve sufficiently large markets. If one does not meet the criteria, the freight lines exit.
MidlandMike However, until they up the frequencies in the MSP-CHI corridor, the time has not come yet to eliminate stops. The (express) passenger advocacy group seems to have indicated they want to eliminate the small stops from the start, because they think it will be easier than trying to eliminate them after people get used to them. This is manipulative, and negative to any idea that people can be reasonable to incremental change.
Somehow I got the impression that the EB served these stations at inconvenient times. It is now obvious to me from the schedule you pointed out that I was mistaken about that. I don't know why the rail passenger agencies decided to duplicate the EB stops, but I would not assume that it was because they "always did it that way". I will admit now that the advocacy group has good reason to question the all stops policy, and the passenger agencies should have to provide good reasons for their final decisions.
Midland Mike: Thanks for acknowledging. That "doing this because we always have done it that way" is called institutional inertia.
I attended a meeting in Madison yesterday morning. On my drive back, I stopped in Columbus in time to see the 1pm eastbound Builder arrive. It was 4 minutes early. The stop lasted 11 minutes. First stop enabled 3 or 4 sleeping car passengers to get on and off, and checked baggage to be loaded and unloaded from the baggage car. That car was serviced from the middle of the main street. Passengers were instructed by sign to place and pick up their luggage from adjacent to the sidewalk along the street. Fortunately yesterday was sunny and dry. Once that was accomplished, the train moved up for a second stop to allow coach passengers to get off and on. About 10 got off, and around 15 got on. One woman had a very difficult time making the steps up into the car. Three of the passengers detraining were Mennonite or Amish. The trainmen and passengers were all cordial to one another during the stop. On the rear of the train was a bubbletop, Puget Sound. I googled when I got home, and found this site:
http://www.pugetsoundrailcar.com
I hadn't been to the Columbus station in a long time. The parking area has been recently blacktopped, a nice improvement. All parking spots were taken. Also, shortly before the train arrived, a connecting Lamer's bus made its stop at the station. It left before the train arrived. The train had two engines and 11 cars. It looked like one superliner was being ferried, it being behind the engines. Then the baggage car, etc.
I was left with the same mixed feelings yesterday that I've had when I've been in Columbus before to watch Amtrak arrive. On the one hand I witnessed the time honored gentle humanity involved in taking the train that doesn't otherwise exist much anymore in today's world. It touches my soul. At the same time there's the frustration from seeing a kind of poverty of resource that limits what the trainpeople can offer to best serve the passengers.
Both Puget Sound and Sierra Hotel used to wear the old Burlington Scheme in the 1980's, I remember seeing them both parked at Midway Station on a trip to MSP in the 1980's. They looked better in CB&Q all stainless steel with the BURLINGTON letterboards, not sure if they were BN business cars then. The new window band paint and blank letterboards (I suspect they just reversed the letterboards and the other side has the BURLINGTON lettering still) is OK I guess.
They are both Vista Dome cars and charterable for between $5000-7000 a day each. They have pictures of both on the AAPRCO website under Cars for Charter.
Gramp ... I was left with the same mixed feelings yesterday that I've had when I've been in Columbus before to watch Amtrak arrive. On the one hand I witnessed the time honored gentle humanity involved in taking the train that doesn't otherwise exist much anymore in today's world. It touches my soul. At the same time there's the frustration from seeing a kind of poverty of resource that limits what the trainpeople can offer to best serve the passengers.
... I was left with the same mixed feelings yesterday that I've had when I've been in Columbus before to watch Amtrak arrive. On the one hand I witnessed the time honored gentle humanity involved in taking the train that doesn't otherwise exist much anymore in today's world. It touches my soul. At the same time there's the frustration from seeing a kind of poverty of resource that limits what the trainpeople can offer to best serve the passengers.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.