Link did not work to NYT story today using the North Coast Limited as an example of a rural passenger route of importance to rural towns and people.
Here's the link. It was the North Coast Hiawatha, 42 years ago. Why not run the EB on the former NP route in Montana to serve more people?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/us/montana-rural-railroad-amtrak.html
Amtrak would need more Superliners Cars to put New Trains on now. Its time too put in New Order of Superliners Cars.
conrailmanAmtrak would need more Superliners Cars to put New Trains on now. Its time too put in New Order of Superliners Cars.
Like the Chicago METRA Gallery cars the Superliner design is out of date and very old. It made sense probably in the 1950's and 1960's but is not as nice as what Siemens already has in it's catalog for two level sleeping cars. I say stick with Siemens as a builder and pick from their catalog vs trying to get someone to build a Superliner today. The Deluxe bedrooms are nicer on Siemens and have a seperate shower and seperate toilet. Economy bedrooms are downsized but I am willing to bet you can fit more Economy paying passengers per sleeping car so the revenue would be higher in that respect.
charlie hebdo It was the North Coast Hiawatha, 42 years ago. Why not run the EB on the former NP route in Montana to serve more people?
It was the North Coast Hiawatha, 42 years ago. Why not run the EB on the former NP route in Montana to serve more people?
One problem is that part of the line to Butte has been out of service since 1983, though the original NP line though Helena is still in service.
What may a more serious problem is that the loadings on the NCH were pretty light. The Miles City Star published the number of passengers getting on or off at Miles City, with typical counts of 3 to 5 per day. West bound trains stopped about 8AM and east bound trains stopped after 5PM, so timing was good for traveling to other parts of Montana. Keep in mind that Mile City is the biggest city in Montana east of Billings.
There might be something to be said of instituting more of a local service, stopping in places like Terry, Forsythe, Custer, Big Timber, etc, which actually be longer spacing than the stops on the Surfliners - Glendive to Livingston is about the same distance as San Diego to San Luis Obispo.
Erik_MagThere might be something to be said of instituting more of a local service, stopping in places like Terry, Forsythe, Custer, Big Timber, etc,
I believe that Big Sky Rail Passenger group mentioned in Trains News Wire maybe considering the local service as a cheaper option than bringing the train all the way from Chicago and .Seattle and that would give them the flexibility as well to be all daylight and at a more convienent time range for the schedule. Not sure how that would work out as a connection with the Empire Builder or if they would just skip that completely. What would be really cool if they followed through on the connection to Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT (mentioned below)........now that would be an awesome ride on UP. It is all dream land until people see the costs though. Sen Crapo (Montana) in another article stated the last time they ran the numbers in 2008 the figure was like $400 million just for restoration of service in Montana and he said in so many words.....no way could he get votes on something so expensive in the depths of a recession, so it was tabled.
https://www.kpax.com/news/missoula-county/efforts-to-restore-amtrak-route-across-southern-montana-gains-momentum
CMStPnPSen Crapo (Montana) in another article stated the last time they ran the numbers in 2008 the figure was like $400 million just for restoration of service in Montana and he said in so many words.....no way could he get votes on something so expensive in the depths of a recession, so it was tabled.
I'll be interested in seeing what percentage is a one-time restoration expense, and what percentage is various kinds of 'structural' subsidy (in the same sense as structural unemployment).
OvermodI'll be interested in seeing what percentage is a one-time restoration expense, and what percentage is various kinds of 'structural' subsidy (in the same sense as structural unemployment).
I am of the opinion that Amtrak inflates these numbers way the hell out of the ballpark the first time a study is done or they let the host railroad run rampant with project add-ons. It always seems the second time around the numbers are rationalized and more accurate and a heck of a lot lower. This keeps happening over and over again so much it almost seems like a business strategy. I wonder.
CMStPnPThis keeps happening over and over again so much it almost seems like a business strategy.
Be assured that it's wise to start with the highest estimates, both for scope and cost, that you can. There are many people eager to demonstrate their cost-cutting 'expertise' (or influence or authority) by cutting your proposal 'down to size' -- whether it merits it, or whether the cutting makes sense or not. It is also wise to leave both time and money available to be sure you can achieve what you intended -- this is not the dread Prime Directive it is for venture capitalism, but it's still bad form, and no fun at all, to have to answer to a Congressional committee about why 'their' money didn't get the job accomplished first time out.
Second time around, everyone's seen the idea, and jerked it around already. It's clearer what is, and what isn't, within the politically or economically achievable scope. In all probability many of the alternatives have been resolved, and more precise ideas about cost or scope incorporated into the 'plan'. To the extent there has to be 'horsetrading' or other action between politicians and the like, that will at least have been started by the time any iteration(s) are being shopped around.
It is very, very rare that you'll find the situation such that you can ask for much more money the second time around, no matter how convincing your justifications and proofs and pro forma sense is. On the other hand, no one ever complained that a 2000% inflation reduced to a 500% inflation doesn't look like some kind of 'sensible cost reduction' or 'relative bargain' ... unless they look carefully at the accounting.
CMStPnP What would be really cool if they followed through on the connection to Boise, ID and Salt Lake City, UT
Can't imagine what utility a Salt Lake -Montana connection would serve.
As long as we are dreaming, how about the eastern connection from Montana, instead of continuing on the ex-NP thru North Dakota, to run over the ex-MILW thru South Dakota-- finally giving that state Amtrak service.
With respect to using the Milw line, I see two big problems. First is upgrading track and signaling for passenger service with several hundred miles of track that would likely need replacing from the subgrade up. OTOH, the alignment is pretty good, max curvature is 3 degrees. Second is that there aren't a lot of people people living on the line between Miles City and Aberdeen.
I think it would make more sense to use the old NP line to run east of Montana as that would serve Mandan and Bismark.
Terminating the western end of the run in Boise doesn't make a lot of sense, be better to bring back the SLC to Seattle train.
Erik_MagWith respect to using the Milw line, I see two big problems...
That's why I qualified it with "As long as we are dreaming,,,"
I like the idea charlie hebdo proposed, of alternating the intermediate routes on, say, a triweekly basis, so there is daily end-to-end 'network' service but still a train every couple of days to many more communities than before.
I'm not sure if there is much of a choice in terms of alternate routing in Montana, unless its alternating between the NP line and GN line between the Twin Cities and Sandpoint, ID.
Glendive to Missoula would be a full day train ride, so two sets plus a couple of spare cars and a spare locomotive could handle the traffic, though a long range DMU would probably make even more sense. The cars or DMU's would need to be built to handle Montana winters - the doors on the Pacific Surfliner cars leak way to much air to be usable in -20F weather.
Erik_MagI'm not sure if there is much of a choice in terms of alternate routing in Montana, unless its alternating between the NP line and GN line between the Twin Cities and Sandpoint, ID. Glendive to Missoula would be a full day train ride, so two sets plus a couple of spare cars and a spare locomotive could handle the traffic, though a long range DMU would probably make even more sense. The cars or DMU's would need to be built to handle Montana winters - the doors on the Pacific Surfliner cars leak way to much air to be usable in -20F weather.
Back in the day, when GN & NP operated their own passenger operations didn't the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited operate on a routing that was different than their secondary runs The Western Star and The Mainstreeter? While the trains serviced the same O-D pairs, their internal routes served different locales.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
NP's North Coast Ltd ran via Butte, and the other ran via Helena. Not sure if there were other deviations beyond this relatively short one.
The variations mentioned on NP were the only ones that wer possible on that route. GN had a variety of variations between the Twin Cities and Minot involving the "Empire Builder", "Western Star", "Red River" and "Dakotan".
The challenge for Amtrak if they are serious about LD trains serving the most people (not miles ridden) would be to see which cities in sparsely populated areas such as ID, MT and the Dakotas are on former NP, GN and CMStP&P trackage that could still be used without a huge investment in upgrading.
charlie hebdoto see which cities in sparsely populated areas such as ID, MT and the Dakotas are on former NP, GN and CMStP&P trackage that could still be used without a huge investment in upgrading.
Overmod charlie hebdo to see which cities in sparsely populated areas such as ID, MT and the Dakotas are on former NP, GN and CMStP&P trackage that could still be used without a huge investment in upgrading. Bet there are people watching this very thread who could give us a detailed early guide to the possible, certainly that would then inform some quick checks of demographic data...
charlie hebdo to see which cities in sparsely populated areas such as ID, MT and the Dakotas are on former NP, GN and CMStP&P trackage that could still be used without a huge investment in upgrading.
Bet there are people watching this very thread who could give us a detailed early guide to the possible, certainly that would then inform some quick checks of demographic data...
Fine and good for our mental ________, but Amtrak Idaho needs to start doing this on many routes, not just follow legacy routes.
charlie hebdoAmtrak Idaho needs to start doing this on many routes, not just follow legacy routes.
As I'm largely ignorant of the actual demand to be tapped, let alone the potential 'inter working' of route segments, I have to pass this to people who have done their research or who know what is possible/practical.
I agree that there's no overt need to replicate 'legacy' train services that served different routes in an age of regulation.
Mark "Vermontanan" Meyer would have the most authoritative knowledge on what's possible in Idaho, Montana and the Dakotas. Based on what he and others have written on the subject, the only route that would not involve substantantial expenditures of money is the NP (now MRL) route through Helena. This would have the advantage of passing through most of the major cities in the state with Butte and Great Falls left out. Coal traffic on the line east of Laurel is down substantially from a decade ago, so there probably is sufficient track capacity.
Rail service in Idaho is basically BNSF in the north and UP in the south, with the most direct connection to Montana in the north. There may be an argument for running a train from Idaho Falls to Boise, but the line from Idaho Falls to Butte is through very sparsely populated territory.
So much of our current routing is based on formerly competing railroads (legacy), now merged. This would include the topic at hand (GN and NP plus CMStP&P) and other possibilities (switch the CZ to UP after Denver, split at SLC to SF and LA sections? or UP to Denver and continue on current ex-DRG&W route to SLC) Furthermore, Amtrak should simply choose the best routes for today using multiple railroads and provide interchange tracks if none exist.
TO increase rail mode passenger service, some new thinking should be considered. Does the right vehicle exist? Conventional rail passnger cars require station infrastructure and staffing. Inherent is the inconvenience of the first and final mile. If origination and destination is within the mile walking distance from a station, then all is well and good. If a dual rail / highway passenger vehcle existed it would overcome the initial and terminating mile problem. If a daul mode vehicle existed it would have the potential to overcome the Amtrak monopoly. It could be owned and operated by the typical small bus fleet company that exists everywhere. Or the vehicle would be owned by Amtrak, or a transportation authority, or another entity. The railroad company whether the freight railroad or Amtrak on the freight railroad would provide the cost efficiencies of the steel wheel upon the steel rail. It would be a turnpike like operation that might be called a "rail-pike." The vehicle woulld likely be based upon Roadrailer technology. An adapted bus design or perhaps a Roadrailer chassis for container transport that could also transport a container deigned for passengers. The dual mode vehicle could be attached to the end of conventional freight or passngers trains. Or, an enterprise might engage in freight container service with a Raodrailer type chassis container carrier that eliminates the tare of TTX and lessens horsepower requirements plus faster operation. That volume of untapped business would ceate a train frequency compatible and complementary for passenger.
It was called "Urbmobile"; Popular Science ran an article about it back in the late 1960s. Rubber tired/battery powered for local operations, steel wheels on steel rails with third rail power (probably 600 volts DC back then) for "rail pike" operations.
In addition to populations, you also need to look at destinations not associated with populated areas, such as the 3 stations in Glacier National Park and nearby Whitefish that draw many passengers.
Biggest attratcion near the ex-NP line in Montana is Yellowstone, but the nearest stop, Livingston, is about 45 miles away. The NP did have a branch to Gardiner and we can dream about extending the Gardiner line to West Yellowstone to meet up with the reconstructed UP Yellowstone branch....
charlie hebdo Here's the link. It was the North Coast Hiawatha, 42 years ago. Why not run the EB on the former NP route in Montana to serve more people?
Sounds like you are making the commonplace inaccurate assumption that more population equates to a higher ridership. If that was true, the Empire Builder, serving more low-population-density areas than any other long distance train (doesn't stop in a community with more than 10,000 people for the 800+ miles between Williston, ND and Spokane, WA), would be the least-ridden Amtrak long distance train. Instead, it's been the most-ridden train for most of the past 20 years.
Plus there are other reasons, such as the longer North Coast Hiawatha routing would take a sixth set of equipment (for a daily operation) and could not make the both the same-day connections at Chicago and Portland.
But the main reason is that true passenger train advocates don't support eliminating service on one route to establish it on another.
Mark Meyer
Erik_Mag the only route that would not involve substantantial expenditures of money is the NP (now MRL) route through Helena. This would have the advantage of passing through most of the major cities in the state with Butte and Great Falls left out. Coal traffic on the line east of Laurel is down substantially from a decade ago, so there probably is sufficient track capacity. Rail service in Idaho is basically BNSF in the north and UP in the south, with the most direct connection to Montana in the north. There may be an argument for running a train from Idaho Falls to Boise, but the line from Idaho Falls to Butte is through very sparsely populated territory.
the only route that would not involve substantantial expenditures of money is the NP (now MRL) route through Helena. This would have the advantage of passing through most of the major cities in the state with Butte and Great Falls left out. Coal traffic on the line east of Laurel is down substantially from a decade ago, so there probably is sufficient track capacity.
You're correct, Erik.
As for the rail authority and their mentioning routes like Butte-Idaho Falls-Salt Lake City and Billings-Denver, I believe this is a rather disingenuous way to get more counties to join the coalition without there being a chance in hell that there would ever be the resources for such routes. The route from Butte to Idaho Falls is mostly dark territory with lots of curves and likely would take over twice as long as parallel I-15 where the speed limit on the Montana portion is mostly 80 MPH. Billings to Denver could be made under block signal protection, but would need miss Casper and Cheyenne and Fort Collins. Upgrading to serve these places would be an astronomical cost. So indeed, the Rail Authority needs to focus on the only logical route: The ex-North Coast Hiawatha route (except via Helena), which has loads of challenges on its own.
SAMUEL C WALKERTO increase rail mode passenger service, some new thinking should be considered. Does the right vehicle exist? Conventional rail passnger cars require station infrastructure and staffing. Inherent is the inconvenience of the first and final mile.
So on this subject, Amtrak can learn a lot from Europe, especially DB in Germany. I would like to see Amtrak move beyond just locomotive hauled consists and start investing in DMU's to run on light traveled freight lines that have better station stops for "light" corridor services that serve primarily a feeder line into a major corridor. DB does this in Germany on it's Bremen to Bremerhaven line now. They used to run locomotive hauled trains on this line but now I believe are down to DMU's and self-propelled railcars.
Additionally Amtrak should get into partnerships with city transit buses and city run streetcar lines whereas an Amtrak intercity passenger can use their intercity ticket for the miles delivery using city transit or light rail via transfer at the train station.
Perhaps a third option is reusing an Amtrak LD or intercity ticket on a privately run tourist lines. Perhaps maybe to meet the Santa Fe Southern in Lamy, NM for delivery to Santa Fe, NM? Or meet the Grand Canyon, Railway in Winslow for delivery to the Grand Canyon Hotel? I think some ancillary revenue could be had there as well.
So I would like to see those three innovations come to pass here in the United States.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.