If a southern passenger route ran across Montana, they could.
Reinstating that defunct route is a topic for discussion at 10 a.m. Tuesday in the Governor's Reception Room at the state Capitol in Helena."
Full story here......
http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/04/08/news/local/news05.prt
I believe it is inevitable that the EB will get moved off the High Line down to the MRL.
FM I would like to see this happen. It would be swell, but NPS at Glacier would throw a fit.
Dave,
Since Amtrak does not have the equipment, I presume you want to see to see the current Empire Builder detoured off of its present route between Fargo and Sandpoint rather than trying to extend the Portland section of the Empire Builder east from Spokane.
The route would be about 30 miles shorter, but I would guess 4 hours longer. Would Amtrak need to increase the HP/T due to the grades on the former NP ?
I would also guess North Dakota would be against this, as Williston, Minot, Devils Lake and Grand Forks have a lot more voters than Bismarck does.
Montana would need to pay all of the costs involved in a route change.
While there are some interesting implications, the article fails to reveal the exact agenda of the meeting, who is sponsoring the meeting and if any decision-making authorities will actually attend.
My take on this is it is written off a MARP press release of wishful thinking.
The quote that Montana Rail Link is "keeping a eye on it" is meanless.
CG9602 wrote:An additional isue is that of the condition and class of track along the Montana Rail Link. Amtrak has indicated that they are not interested in operating on track that is lower than FRA class 3. The High Line is FRA class 4. Are there any significant slow orders alone the Montana Rail Link route? It would have to be upgraded to class 3 for the entire legnth of the run. Much as I enjoy trains, I have to ask where is the money for this going to come from? Does someone have a grove of money trees on the back 40 somewhere?
A higher track class indicates tougher standards and higher allowable speed limits. Class 1 is the lowest and Class 6 is the highest.
The hearings were under the auspices of the US Congress, sponsored by Senator Baucus of MT among others. They were conducted by staff members of the senators. The focus was long term rail needs, long term as in 10 years or more out.
MRL tracks are 60 mph max speed where curvature allows. The entire mainline is CTC controlled. AMTK has detoured trains over the line in the past account derailments on the BNSF.
futuremodel, why do you believe it is inevitable??
With Glacier Park such a significant attraction, while Yellowstone is many miles from the southern line, I see no tourist motivation for the change. Also, the southern line would have to undergo substantial renovation to handle a passenger operation and who should pay for that?
Perhaps you have info that will enlighten myself and others who may not see all that's involved.
diningcar wrote: With Glacier Park such a significant attraction, while Yellowstone is many miles from the southern line, I see no tourist motivation for the change. Also, the southern line would have to undergo substantial renovation to handle a passenger operation and who should pay for that?
The Park is pretty small spuds. In 2005, Whitefish Amtrak had 62,719 passengers compared to 11,943 at East Glacier. And, not all those at East Glacier are Park bound; but it happens to be a convenient station for the Rocky Mountain Front communities. As the opening post suggests, the Whitefish passengers tend to be passengers from all over Western Montana. For some reason, people (and I am one of them) will drive 2-3 hours to Whitefish from Missoula, Stevensville, Hamilton, just to take Amtrak. Big Mountain Ski resort plays a role in that as well.
I think the idea is that the southern line hits not only the major population centers of Montana but, on a weighted basis, much more of the population growth. With the exception of Kalispell/Whitefish, the Hi Line is pretty empty territory, and relatively speaking, getting emptier.
What kind of specific renovation do you think the southern line would need, and what do you base that on?
Victrola1 wrote:If the Milwaukee Roads' Pacific extension were still there and in good shape, would be of any value for Amtrak? The Hiawatha to Pugent Sound died long before Amtrak.
MS, I have no specific info about the cost to renovate which is why I solicited 'specific' info from someone who does. However, there is more to this than MRL and I suspect that much of the RR east from Bilings is not nearly ready for passenger service. Those with more specic data please add to this discussion. I suspect that if this gets studied there will be substantial costs required.
Also, Whitefish is very close to the west entrance to Glacier and a significant part of their loading would be related to Glacier. In fact that is where auto rentals are available and unless you book a tour you need an automobile to enjoy Glacier Park.
Victrola1 wrote:If the Milwaukee Roads' Pacific extension were still there and in good shape, would it be of any value for Amtrak?
Oh, it would probably be faster, and it was overall a much more scenic route than the current Seattle Amtrak version, although I don't think anything surpasses the Spokane to Portland version. Other than a couple of nice stretches, the Empire Builder to Seattle generally passes through some of the most boring and monotonous country imaginable. The Olympian and the North Coast Limited were much more interesting to ride, if a person really wanted to see "the Country."
Would lose Everett which seems to be a pretty important stop, but gain the advantage of Renton, Auburn, Tacoma connections, as well as the more populous southern Montana route.
"Faster" is based on comparative contemporaneous hotshot freight schedules operated by the railroads at the points in time that the track conditions were comparable. The railroads had "gentlemen's agreements" not to compete on speed when all three were running passenger service, so contemporaneous passenger timetables from the passenger era don't offer much guidance on the question.
diningcar wrote: Also, Whitefish is very close to the west entrance to Glacier and a significant part of their loading would be related to Glacier. In fact that is where auto rentals are available and unless you book a tour you need an automobile to enjoy Glacier Park.
You may be creating some assumptions here. The Whitefish traffic is pretty stable year-round; the Park is usually good for only about four months.
The little -- and I mean little, the thing is located in a closet -- auto rental agency at the Whitefish depot is not even open for Amtrak trains. I've never seen it open for business while arriving or departing on the Empire Builder. There's no rental car lot. I've never seen a rental car there.
MichaelSol wrote: Other than a couple of nice stretches, the Empire Builder to Seattle generally passes through some of the most boring and monotonous country imaginable. The Olympian and the North Coast Limited were much more interesting to ride, if a person really wanted to see "the Country."
Other than a couple of nice stretches, the Empire Builder to Seattle generally passes through some of the most boring and monotonous country imaginable. The Olympian and the North Coast Limited were much more interesting to ride, if a person really wanted to see "the Country."
Amen to that. I've ridden both the eastbound Amtrak Empire Builder and the eastbound Amtrak North Coast Hiawatha and the latter has it all over the former for scenery. Never was I so disappointed with looking at mile-after-mile of grassland as no. 8 crossed the nothern tier of Montana. Of all of the western railroad experiences I've had, it was, hands down, the most boring!
As for routing a train Portland - BNSF - Pasco-Spokane - MRL - Laurel, Mont. - BNSF via Casper - Denver and to somehow schedule a connection with Amtrak nos. 5 and 6, well, that'd be a whole 'nother story. Across Wyoming the 280-miles between the southern edge of the Wind River Canyon and Cheyenne has very few scenic spots along the way and those, as part of a Denver connection with the California Zephyr, would be covered in daylight. Given the small population of Wyoming and the fact that the citizenry are so inurred to their passenger cars and pickup trucks, I doubt the Cowboy State would generate much traffic anyhow.
spokyone wrote: FM I would like to see this happen. It would be swell, but NPS at Glacier would throw a fit.
Nah, I think they'd play ball. After all, it is probably logistically easier to have a train stop off in Missoula and bus the GP'ers up to West Glacier. Same with Yellowstone - stop off in Livingston and bus 'em down to Gardiner. The point is, moving the EB down to the I-90 corridor does not necessarily detract from the National Park Experience.
Besides the GP NPS folks are raggin' on BNSF for wanting to use explosives to alleviate slide potential. Hey, if they can't make the slopes safe for BNSF freights, then they ain't safe for Amtrak neither!
nanaimo73 wrote: Dave,Since Amtrak does not have the equipment, I presume you want to see to see the current Empire Builder detoured off of its present route between Fargo and Sandpoint rather than trying to extend the Portland section of the Empire Builder east from Spokane.The route would be about 30 miles shorter, but I would guess 4 hours longer. Would Amtrak need to increase the HP/T due to the grades on the former NP ?
Frankly, I'd like to see the Portland-Spokane section removed. Either go Spokane to Seattle and let Portlanders use the Coast Starlight(?) to access the EB, or go Spokane to Portland and let the Puget Sounders use the CS to access the EB. And if the EB is moved to the ex-NP between Spokane and Seattle, it becomes almost nonsensical to split the EB at Pasco.
FYI - if the EB was moved down via Pasco and Stampede Pass, it'd add a lot more than 4 hours to the EB trip!
Bottom line: Since there is already Amtrak service between Portland and Seattle, there's no need to split the EB.
As for North Dakota, isn't there (or wasn't there) a rail connection between Williston on the ex-GN and Glendive on the ex-NP? If so, why not route the EB along that line? Otherwise, I'd think that the ex-NP through ND has less rail traffic than the ex-GN, and the populations of Dickinson, Mandan, Bismark, Jamestown, and Valley City certainly rival those of Williston, Minot, Devils Lake, and Grand Forks.
Well, I suppose, although if one thinks about it a reroute of the EB through more populated territory should result in greater patronage. If anything, they'd be doing Amtrak a favor!
arbfbe wrote:What the article linked fails to mention is the conesensus is to move the split of #8 and #28 east from Spokane to Fargo or some other convenient place in ND. Train #8 would pretty much remain the same on the highline though shorter. The idea is to make this a win-win. A past proposal was to split a train off at Cheyenne or Denver and send it north through WY and on to Portland. Perhaps this recent plan will gain more traction than the last since it does not have to fight the floods of coal trains somewhere in the PRB.
Question: How would one take an all-Amtrak trip from LA to the Twin Cities? I would suppose that'd be the Chief from LA to Chicago, then the EB back to the Twin Cities, right?
What about splitting the EB at Garrison MT, with the #28 heading south via Pocatello, but instead of heading west via Boise to Portland (e.g. the Pioneer), just keep heading south through Salt Lake, Las Vegas, and on to LA! That route seems competitive mileage-wise with the LA to Chicago to Twin Cities routing.
CG9602 wrote:An additional issue is that of the condition and class of track along the Montana Rail Link. Amtrak has indicated that they are not interested in operating on track that is lower than FRA class 3. The High Line is FRA class 4. Are there any significant slow orders alone the Montana Rail Link route? It would have to be upgraded to class 3 or higher for the entire legnth of the run. What is the class of the track for Montana Rail Link?Much as I enjoy trains, I have to ask where is the money for this going to come from? Does someone have a grove of money trees on the back 40 somewhere?
What I've seen of MRL track up close is that it seems to be in supreme condition, rivalling that of BNSF's (all-welded rail, CTC, etc). Not suprising, since BNSF sends much of it's traffic over MRL. However, I'm not an expert on such things, so I must defer comment to those in the know.
As for who pays, well, if rerouting the EB through a more populous corridor results in more paying customers, wouldn't that in effect "pay for it"?
diningcar wrote: futuremodel, why do you believe it is inevitable??
For no other reason than it makes sense to do so. More population to serve, moving Amtrak to a less congested rail line, an infered approval from Montana passenger rail advocates (although I'd like to see their comments if they were presented with the idea as being the only way to reintroduce passenger service to the I-90 corridor), and frankly a lot more scenery than the High Line.
I don't believe the MRL would need anything close to "substantial renovation" to effectively handle Amtrak service. From what I've seen of MRL it appears to be in A-1 condition. I do not know about the track conditions east of Billings on BNSF.
As for accessing the National Parks, it would make sense from my perspective for Amtrak to team up with bus lines to get to the NP's. Go by bus from Missoula to Glacier, go by bus from Livingston to Yellowstone. And if the EB were routed via Bismark, that'd take it right through the Theodore Roosevelt NP.
futuremodal wrote: diningcar wrote: futuremodel, why do you believe it is inevitable??For no other reason than it makes sense to do so. More population to serve, moving Amtrak to a less congested rail line, an infered approval from Montana passenger rail advocates (although I'd like to see their comments if they were presented with the idea as being the only way to reintroduce passenger service to the I-90 corridor), and frankly a lot more scenery than the High Line.With Glacier Park such a significant attraction, while Yellowstone is many miles from the southern line, I see no tourist motivation for the change. Also, the southern line would have to undergo substantial renovation to handle a passenger operation and who should pay for that?I don't believe the MRL would need anything close to "substantial renovation" to effectively handle Amtrak service. From what I've seen of MRL it appears to be in A-1 condition. I do not know about the track conditions east of Billings on BNSF.As for accessing the National Parks, it would make sense from my perspective for Amtrak to team up with bus lines to get to the NP's. Go by bus from Missoula to Glacier, go by bus from Livingston to Yellowstone. And if the EB were routed via Bismark, that'd take it right through the Theodore Roosevelt NP.
For North Dakota, it would be worse, and for that reason they would fight to keep it the way that things are now. The MRL line isn't congested, but once you get east of Billings you start running into coal trains, lots of them. Figure 12 trains a day in each direction, all but one of the EBs will be loaded coal trains. East of Glendive, MT each of the coal trains will have a manned helper which has to return to Glendive from Sully Springs, ND (the top of the second hill), so between Glendive and Sully Springs you can double the number of WBs because of the light helpers. All this on single track and the coal trains slowly slog up those two hills. At least on the Hi-line a fair number of the freights are Z-trains.
Can anyone tell me how they split and later rejoin the Empire Builder sections in Spokane? Which section gets the dining and baggage car or does that not matter because the split route is not travelled during meal times? Is there a lot of switching and shuffling of cars to make sure each section gets coaches and sleepers, or is one section coach only? How does this work in terms of switching operations?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Can anyone tell me how they split and later rejoin the Empire Builder sections in Spokane? Which section gets the dining and baggage car or does that not matter because the split route is not travelled during meal times? Is there a lot of switching and shuffling of cars to make sure each section gets coaches and sleepers, or is one section coach only? How does this work in terms of switching operations?
Dining car goes to Seattle, the Superliner Lounge to Portland, Portland baggage goes on the lower level of a Baggage-Coach. Only snackbar service between Portland and Spokane.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Can anyone tell me how they split and later rejoin the Empire Builder sections in Spokane? Which section gets the dining and baggage car or does that not matter because the split route is not travelled during meal times? Is there a lot of switching and shuffling of cars to make sure each section gets coaches and sleepers, or is one section coach only? How does this work in terms of switching operations?
The train has two engines across the northern tier, and the train is split at Spokane usually about midnight. Switching the sleepers, coaches and first class into two trains takes about 45 minutes. As John mentions, the dining car goes to Seattle, and the lounge car goes to Portland.
The lounge/dome is must better utilized on the Portland leg along the Columbia River. Insofar as that limits breakfast before arriving in Portland to things wrapped in plastic; it at least has the benefit of the majestic scenery seen from the dome. By contrast to being herded, cow like, to the "community seating" enforced in the dining car, fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic, served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with, and going through a deeply unpleasant tunnel experience that manages to leave diesel fumes lingering in the cars for miles thereafter, the lounge car to Portland is actually the more positive of the two alternatives.
The entire MRL mainline is maintained to FRA Class 4 standards. The mainline is on long-term lease from BNSF. Only the branchlines are owned outright.
Before my folks returned home to the West, I used to visit them by train from Whitefish to Detroit. The drive from Missoula to Whitefish is about 130 miles. By far the most scenic part of the trip was those 130 miles. Why not thru Glacier Park too? When the train was on time -- either coming or going -- it was thru the park in darkness. The MRL has the clear scenic advantage.
beaulieu wrote: futuremodal wrote: diningcar wrote: futuremodel, why do you believe it is inevitable??For no other reason than it makes sense to do so. More population to serve, moving Amtrak to a less congested rail line, an infered approval from Montana passenger rail advocates (although I'd like to see their comments if they were presented with the idea as being the only way to reintroduce passenger service to the I-90 corridor), and frankly a lot more scenery than the High Line.With Glacier Park such a significant attraction, while Yellowstone is many miles from the southern line, I see no tourist motivation for the change. Also, the southern line would have to undergo substantial renovation to handle a passenger operation and who should pay for that?I don't believe the MRL would need anything close to "substantial renovation" to effectively handle Amtrak service. From what I've seen of MRL it appears to be in A-1 condition. I do not know about the track conditions east of Billings on BNSF.As for accessing the National Parks, it would make sense from my perspective for Amtrak to team up with bus lines to get to the NP's. Go by bus from Missoula to Glacier, go by bus from Livingston to Yellowstone. And if the EB were routed via Bismark, that'd take it right through the Theodore Roosevelt NP.For North Dakota, it would be worse, and for that reason they would fight to keep it the way that things are now.
For North Dakota, it would be worse, and for that reason they would fight to keep it the way that things are now.
I'm still not sure why some people think ND would instinctively oppose this reroute? I've checked the respective populations of these two corridors, and the I-94 corridor has slightly more population than the US 2 corridor.
It may represent a change, but it is highly subjective to suggest this change would be "worse".
The MRL line isn't congested, but once you get east of Billings you start running into coal trains, lots of them. Figure 12 trains a day in each direction, all but one of the EBs will be loaded coal trains. East of Glendive, MT each of the coal trains will have a manned helper which has to return to Glendive from Sully Springs, ND (the top of the second hill), so between Glendive and Sully Springs you can double the number of WBs because of the light helpers. All this on single track and the coal trains slowly slog up those two hills. At least on the Hi-line a fair number of the freights are Z-trains.
Could any of these coal trains be switched down to the ex-Milwaukee line? Which power plants are served by these I-94 coal trains?
How did the NP/BN manage to co-host these coal trains with the North Coast Limited/Hiawatha?
Is this necessarily an imovable impediment?
futuremodal wrote:Could any of these coal trains be switched down to the ex-Milwaukee line? Which power plants are served by these I-94 coal trains?How did the NP/BN manage to co-host these coal trains with the North Coast Limited/Hiawatha?Is this necessarily an imovable impediment?
If some one would through some significant money at the MILW route yes, but BNSF won't, just to accommodate Amtrak, and I don't think either Amtrak or Montana will. From Mobridge, SD to Terry, MT is 25 mph, Dark Territory, manual siding switches, and only three sidings useable by most trains. When meets are necessary it isn't unusual for a train to wait 2 1/2 to 3 hours for the opposing train because of slow speeds and long distances between sidings.
If the MILW route could accept more trains then the trains for Columbia Power on CP in Wisconsin would be divertable, and maybe those for Sherco at Becker, MN. The largest amount of coal trains are for Midwest Energy at Superior, WI. They can't readily be diverted.
How did the NP/BN manage to co-host these coal trains with the North Coast Hiawatha?
The NCH came off in 1979, before the coal traffic picked up.
What Alan said makes the most sense, turn the Spokane-Portland EB into a Fargo-Portland section. However, if the Sandpoint-Billings section is going to run at 60 mph, and the Billings-Fargo section at 50 mph, while the EB on the Hi-Line runs at 79 mph (?), there is going to be a big time difference. (8 to 12 hours ?) Perhaps the Fargo-Billings-Sandpoint section should run to Seattle and the Fargo-Minot-Sandpoint section to Portland.
Would Montana pick up the costs of the diners on two trainsets while ND paid for the third diner ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.