MidlandMike charlie hebdo Hate to throw a wet blanket on potential rail traffic to the Grand Canyon, but that seems miniscule compared to corridor service through Ohio and beyond. Most people fly and rent a car or drive to the Grand Canyon as part of a larger number of tourist destinations. Day visitors must park at outlying lots and take shuttles thru the National Park. Only special needs can go by car. There was some talk by the NPS to use the train to bring people in from even further out lots. The topic of the thread is rural passenger service.
charlie hebdo Hate to throw a wet blanket on potential rail traffic to the Grand Canyon, but that seems miniscule compared to corridor service through Ohio and beyond. Most people fly and rent a car or drive to the Grand Canyon as part of a larger number of tourist destinations.
Hate to throw a wet blanket on potential rail traffic to the Grand Canyon, but that seems miniscule compared to corridor service through Ohio and beyond. Most people fly and rent a car or drive to the Grand Canyon as part of a larger number of tourist destinations.
Day visitors must park at outlying lots and take shuttles thru the National Park. Only special needs can go by car. There was some talk by the NPS to use the train to bring people in from even further out lots.
The topic of the thread is rural passenger service.
My error. Sorry.
"MidlandMike"]I thought I remembered it as 20 miles, but I see by the map its 30 miles by I-40. Still I don't remember it as an hour.
Both depots are downtown and the Flagstaff locations requires min 2o minutes to get to I-40. Then 10-20 minutes to get to Williams depot or depot hotel
diningcarMore like an hour or more from Flagstaff station to Williams hotel or train station.
I thought I remembered it as 20 miles, but I see by the map its 30 miles by I-40. Still I don't remember it as an hour.
Deleted
"MidlandMike"]They could use Flagstaff station which would be about a 20 minute shuttle ride away. The hotel in Williams (owned by the same company that owns the tourist RR) is about 100 yards from the Williams depot platform, but it seemed less when we stayed there a few years ago.
More like an hour or more from Flagstaff station to Williams hotel or train station.
CMStPnP MidlandMike I am guessing you meant Williams. However, the Santa Fe mainline bypassed Williams by about a half mile. Another problem is the inconvenient arrival hours for a tourist train connection. Thats fine on both fronts. They do not need a cross platform connection with a nice hotel located there, they only need a stop and a shuttle to the hotel. From what I understand even if they used the rail connection to the Williams depot they would still need a shuttle bus to the hotel.
MidlandMike I am guessing you meant Williams. However, the Santa Fe mainline bypassed Williams by about a half mile. Another problem is the inconvenient arrival hours for a tourist train connection.
Thats fine on both fronts. They do not need a cross platform connection with a nice hotel located there, they only need a stop and a shuttle to the hotel. From what I understand even if they used the rail connection to the Williams depot they would still need a shuttle bus to the hotel.
They could use Flagstaff station which would be about a 20 minute shuttle ride away. The hotel in Williams (owned by the same company that owns the tourist RR) is about 100 yards from the Williams depot platform, but it seemed less when we stayed there a few years ago.
MidlandMikeI am guessing you meant Williams. However, the Santa Fe mainline bypassed Williams by about a half mile. Another problem is the inconvenient arrival hours for a tourist train connection.
Elbe Weser Bahn is 80% owned by the state of Niedersachsen and operates trains and buses in the area. They also operate container trains into the interior of Germany. The link is to the weekend tourist operation of these old VT 98 Schienenbusse (Railbuses) from Stade.
charlie hebdoCMStPnP : Jawohl on your first suggestion. The line from Bremerhaven-Lehe east to Cuxhaven was DMU (Triebwagen) for years and now is using hydrogen cell units successfully.
I believe there is also a private railway passenger train that runs along the Southernly part of the route but I have no clue what the hell these cars are (see link below).
https://www.stade-tourismus.de/en/moor-express/
blue streak 1 As you have posted the proposed routes is not up to the standards of the northern transcon. If transcon has too much traffic then using the revived NCH routes as an relief grain route to west coast might keep every thing fluid + the money to pay for NCH route ROW ?
As you have posted the proposed routes is not up to the standards of the northern transcon. If transcon has too much traffic then using the revived NCH routes as an relief grain route to west coast might keep every thing fluid + the money to pay for NCH route ROW ?
The former North Coast Hiawatha route (via Helena, and excluding the route through Butte which is no longer all in service) is actually in better shape than it was in 1979 by far. East of Billings - given current traffic trends - is where there will be less and less interference for a passenger train as demand for coal wanes with key coal-fired generating plants in Minnesota and Michigan being replaced with natural gas or are being retired due to their age. West of Billings, MRL has plenty of traffic - including grain when there is a grain rush. The route is restricted to about 30 trains per day due to steep grades. The primary bottleneck is heavy coal and grain trains grinding up nearly 20 miles of 2.2 percent in a single track operation west of Helena. Bozeman pass (1.8% westbound) west of Livingston is challenging, too. Except for the tunnel atop the pass, Bozeman Pass was once double track, and could be relaid, but due to the serpentine nature of the railroad west of Helena, the cost to sufficiently enable the operation of a significant number of additional unit trains (not to mention superimposing a passenger train) would be huge - so much so that the sticker shock would doom any prospect for a passenger train. I'm not saying that not doing this will doom a passenger train, but it would simply mean that the schedule for the passenger train would lengthened to accommodate limited capacity on the steeper grades as a less-expensive alternative.
If it was known that there would be a sustained need for more capacity for heavy trains west of Billings, the least expensive alternative would be to upgrade the route from Mossmain (Laurel) to Shelby and west. Though just over 90 miles longer, it is cheaper to operate for heavy unit trains because helpers are not used (the maximum grade is only 1.3%, and this for only 3 miles, compared to grades of 2% or more on MRL and UP across the Blue Mountains).
In the summer of 2009, Mullan Tunnel collapsed on the MRL west of Helena putting the route out of service for a month. Almost all traffic was rerouted along the Empire Builder route, which was handling 45-50 trains daily. One day, 15 unit coal and grain trains operated west from Shelby. The grain trains operated with their normal complement of power for this route (4 "premium" locomotives, as BNSF called them at the time, usually C44s) and the coal trains - operating with 125 cars and just shy of 18,000 tons with four AC locomotives (the standard power of the MRL routing, but would require helper power at Livingston and Helena) - operated on the detour route without needing any additional power whatsoever. And, the following day in Seattle, the Empire Builder arrived on time.
The key to enhancing capacity is lack of grade, sufficient track infrastructure (Marias Pass is 2 MT CTC on the west slope), and an operation without time- and personnel-consuming power modifications. The Empire Builder route over the Continental Divide achieves all these requirements.
The wild card in all of this is the projected growth and what the railroads would state as necessary to handle it.
Mark Meyer
CMStPnPPerhaps a third option is reusing an Amtrak LD or intercity ticket on a privately run tourist lines. ... Or meet the Grand Canyon, Railway in Winslow for delivery to the Grand Canyon Hotel?
I am guessing you meant Williams. However, the Santa Fe mainline bypassed Williams by about a half mile. Another problem is the inconvenient arrival hours for a tourist train connection.
The news wire article about record grain haulage today might have some intereting use. If this routing of the NCH actually went thru and the necessary upgrades happned then --------Maybe if BNSF and to a lesser extent UP would need extra capacity to haul all the freight. Charge the RRs track useage.
I've ridden on the Bombardier "Talent" DMUs in Germany and I really don't see why we can't have them here. Fast, quiet, comfortable with a drinks trolley. Candy butcher to use an old term, but still I think they would work out well on more rural VIA lines. They could run from Windsor to London for example and could be used to reopen service to Thunder Bay. Southern Tier in New York with all its college towns might be do-able.
CMStPnP : Jawohl on your first suggestion. The line from Bremerhaven-Lehe east to Cuxhaven was DMU (Triebwagen) for years and now is using hydrogen cell units successfully.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.