CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:A reroute of the Empire Builder to larger population centers might be counter-productive. One of the strengths of Amtrak's long distance routes is that they serve the smaller towns that DON'T have alternatives. The larger population centers tend to have some air service which is one of the reasons that people don't ride the train. Amtrak would do better to serve smaller areas where the competition doesn't go.
Hmmmmmm....
How is it more "productive" to bypass larger population centers and instead serve smaller towns? Is that part of Amtrak's charter?
What other Amtrak LD train other than the EB intentionally bypasses the larger cities to serve podunk towns?
The plot thickens.....
Didn't the ex-Milwaukee from Terry to Aberdeen used to be signalled for 79 mph? When did it degrade to WATCO standards?
Didn't the NP through North Dakota used to be 79 mph as well, or was it always 50 mph max?
Question: Wasn't the ex-NP line through North Dakota a candidate for RailRunner service from Bismark to the Twin Cities? Wouldn't that suggest there is additional capacity on that line?
Something doesn't make sense: If the MRL is fine tuned while the ex-NP through ND is not, wouldn't one think that BN would've sold the latter rather than the former? Or is it a case of MRL's owners doing for it's line what BN/BNSF won't do for such "secondary" lines?
futuremodal wrote: Didn't the NP through North Dakota used to be 79 mph as well, or was it always 50 mph max?
When the eastbound North Coast Limited was running late, which was most of the time, they made up time in North Dakota. And you hung on. And if 79 was the absolute max and nobody broke the rules, then they were doing 79 max.
Good giref, Warren McGee pops up in this story. Today's news item from the Associated Press:
A revived effort to reinstate passenger rail service in southern Montana picked up steam Tuesday, with the Schweitzer administration backing the idea and Amtrak officials outlining possible funding sources.Passenger trains last chugged through southern Montana in 1979, and supporters said the time has come for them to run again.
State ridership on Montana's current lone passenger route, Amtrak's Empire Builder along the Hi-Line, is up at least 20 percent and travelers are looking for more options in the face of high gas prices and heightened air travel costs and security, Lt. Gov. John Bohlinger said.
futuremodal wrote: CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:A reroute of the Empire Builder to larger population centers might be counter-productive. One of the strengths of Amtrak's long distance routes is that they serve the smaller towns that DON'T have alternatives. The larger population centers tend to have some air service which is one of the reasons that people don't ride the train. Amtrak would do better to serve smaller areas where the competition doesn't go.Hmmmmmm....How is it more "productive" to bypass larger population centers and instead serve smaller towns? Is that part of Amtrak's charter?Hmmmmmm....What other Amtrak LD train other than the EB intentionally bypasses the larger cities to serve podunk towns?
CG9602 wrote:How do you explain how Minot, or Grand Forks, has more ridership than, say, Omaha?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
CG9602 wrote: How is it more "2006: 19574), and the total ND ridership in 2006 was 114739, while Omaha, NE (population 390,007, ridership in 2006: 25496) and the total NE ridership was 45116?To bring this back to Montana, the total MT ridership for 2006 was 151102, with Whitefish MT having the highest ridership at 68223.
How is it more "2006: 19574), and the total ND ridership in 2006 was 114739, while Omaha, NE (population 390,007, ridership in 2006: 25496) and the total NE ridership was 45116?To bring this back to Montana, the total MT ridership for 2006 was 151102, with Whitefish MT having the highest ridership at 68223.
Well, why is Spokane, with a population of nearly 600,000, showing 42,000 passengers loading while Whitefish, with 7,000 citizens, loads nearly 70,000 passengers?
Omaha loads at 2:00 a.m.. Spokane Amtrak leaves at about 1 a.m.. On the other hand, why does tiny Whitefish load nearly as much as all the other small communities on the Hi Line put together, if community size were really a factor? Whitefish happens to be close to Kalispell International airport which actually does have pretty good air service. So absence of air service is not at all the reason, or even a good one in that case; indeed, it's not that far to Spokane.
Westbound Amtrak leaves Whitefish at about 9:30 p.m. and eastbound arrives at about 7 a.m.. For many travelers in Western Montana, those just happen to be ideal times to depart and arrive, and not lose a day of work.
As a result of that pleasant coincidence, Whitefish serves a substantial urban area -- Kalispell/Missoula/Hamilton -- and the Amtrak ridership is ultimately an urban ridership, utterly unlike Chinook, Havre or Minot.
futuremodal wrote:The plot thickens.....Didn't the ex-Milwaukee from Terry to Aberdeen used to be signalled for 79 mph? When did it degrade to WATCO standards?
I am not sure about 79 mph, but the line was ABS west of Mobridge, there was some CTC in the Aberdeen area. The line began going down hill in the late MILW era, the signals went after the PCE ended, vandalism and lack of need caused their removal. There is ABS west out of Aberdeen to about halfway to Mobridge. Don't forget that in the '90s there were days without any trains operating west of Aberdeen. Even now there are some days without trains. ( The manifests run 5 days per week, the coal train operates on a 28 hour cycle, grain trains are seasonal).
I am sure speeds used to be higher in spots, but any curves that used to have superelevation don't now.
Well its flatter east of Bismarck, and of course east of Fargo there is more capacity, and the coal trains fan out in more directions. In the NP era there were fewer trains, and they were lighter. Until the last year of NP's existence, the only coal trains were those moving coal for steam locomotives.
The MRL only has half as many train movements as BNSF's former NP mainline. Congestion is more the problem on the NP. On the former MILW, BNSF only just purchased the line from the State of South Dakota. In fact I am not sure the sale has closed yet.
MichaelSol wrote:<snipped> As a result of that pleasant coincidence, Whitefish serves a substantial urban area -- Kalispell/Missoula/Hamilton -- and the Amtrak ridership is ultimately an urban ridership, utterly unlike Chinook, Havre or Minot.
<snipped>
If that is true, then why does the Empire Builder do so much better than say the Southwest Chief?
BTW- Chinook? never heard of a town by that name. And doesn't Missoula have better airline service than Kalispell? It used to.
beaulieu wrote: If that is true, then why does the Empire Builder do so much better than say the Southwest Chief?
Well, I don't know where the Southwest Chief is at 9:30 at night or 7 a.m.
beaulieu wrote: BTW- Chinook? never heard of a town by that name. And doesn't Missoula have better airline service than Kalispell? It used to.
The "largest city in Blaine County"!
Missoula has good airline service. That's my point. The particular convenience of the Whitefish Amtrak arrival and departure times makes it work and for those like myself that prefer early morning arrivals in Seattle or Portland, both the combination of the service times at Whitefish and the West Coast arrival times makes it work extremely well for those of us who like to take the train. And that is why Whitefish has such extremely high numbers for a 7,000 person community -- it serves a large urban area which uses the service, despite the presence of two international airports. If the arrival and departure times were significantly different, I probably couldn't justify using Amtrak myself, but I can get off work, drive 2 and a half hours and still make the train. If I had to miss work, and still drive two and a half hours -- the whole idea changes ....
Your a faster poster than me.
So why doesn't Whitefish with optimum times and good arrivals at Seattle and Portland do even better than a center like Minot or Grand Forks with a much smaller population base within its catchment area?(3 or 4 times the population, but only twice the ridership, and no large city within a days travel)
BTW- How are airfares out of Missoula or Kalispell, with limited competition they tend to be higher. Certainly that is the case further east in Wisconsin. I am much closer to the Duluth airport than Minneapolis, parking is cheaper, the hassle is less, and the walk is shorter, but the cost is way higher for airfares. So when I need to fly I drive to Minneapolis 2+ hours (the plus is for rush hour traffic) and the crowds at security.
beaulieu wrote: Michael, your comment about Whitefish having only 7,000 residents, but nearly 70,000 movements, then you turn that around and say that Whitefish really serves in addition Kalispell/Hamilton and Missoula. What is the population of the catchment area of Whitefish station?
Michael, your comment about Whitefish having only 7,000 residents, but nearly 70,000 movements, then you turn that around and say that Whitefish really serves in addition Kalispell/Hamilton and Missoula. What is the population of the catchment area of Whitefish station?
Probably about 230,000 population. Note the lead post -- the travelers were from Stevensville, Montana. To get to Whitefish, they pass two international airports, not to mention that they are almost equidistant to Spokane International airport as they are to Whitefish. Those folks simply want to take the train.
My other question is, your statement about the times west out of Whitefish are good, but to where, just Portland or Seattle, Spokane hits the same after midnight time. Also the times at Whitefish are relevant for going and coming from the west, is the traffic that much more significant to the west? i.e. a lot more boardings on #7 and detraining from #8 rather than vice versa.
The evening Westbound hosts a crowded depot; mostly entraining to the West. Not too many people getting off from the east; a few, but just not that many. The morning eastbound a lot of folks get off, I don't note that many people getting on.
That overnight service to Seattle and Portland just works very, very well for a lot of people through Whitefish; and it is overnight back to Whitefish. On its own, that section of Amtrak may be one of the last "Night Trains" where people take it precisely because it is an overnighter; a "Pioneer Limited" out West ....
Hardly anyone gets on or off at Spokane; a few, but who wants to have to get their ride from the depot at 1:00 a.m.?
BTW- How are airfares out of Missoula or Kalispell, with limited competition they tend to be higher.
I've got a $145 plane ticket to Seattle sitting here -- it's cheaper than Amtrak, and it's only a twenty minute drive to the airport. But, I don't particularly like the airports at either end; my kids in Seattle have to drive twice as far to pick me up at the airport as at King Street and at King Street, we are right in the middle of all the interesting stuff -- the International District, the Waterfront, Downtown -- whereas at SeaTac we are ... nowhere except SeaTac.
Same at Portland -- it's a neat old depot, easy access, right next to the Pearl district, it's tons of fun to just go to lunch with them. I don't even know where the Portland airport is. I mean, I've been driven there ... seems like we drove and drove and drove ....
MichaelSol wrote: beaulieu wrote: Michael, your comment about Whitefish having only 7,000 residents, but nearly 70,000 movements, then you turn that around and say that Whitefish really serves in addition Kalispell/Hamilton and Missoula. What is the population of the catchment area of Whitefish station? Probably about 230,000 population. Note the lead post -- the travelers were from Stevensville, Montana. To get to Whitefish, they pass two international airports, not to mention that they are almost equidistant to Spokane International airport as they are to Whitefish. Those folks simply want to take the train.My other question is, your statement about the times west out of Whitefish are good, but to where, just Portland or Seattle, Spokane hits the same after midnight time. Also the times at Whitefish are relevant for going and coming from the west, is the traffic that much more significant to the west? i.e. a lot more boardings on #7 and detraining from #8 rather than vice versa.The evening Westbound hosts a crowded depot; mostly entraining to the West. Not too many people getting off from the east; a few, but just not that many. The morning eastbound a lot of folks get off, I don't note that many people getting on. That overnight service to Seattle and Portland just works very, very well for a lot of people through Whitefish; and it is overnight back to Whitefish. On its own, that section of Amtrak may be one of the last "Night Trains" where people take it precisely because it is an overnighter; a "Pioneer Limited" out West ....Hardly anyone gets on or off at Spokane; a few, but who wants to have to get their ride from the depot at 1:00 a.m.?BTW- How are airfares out of Missoula or Kalispell, with limited competition they tend to be higher. I've got a $145 plane ticket to Seattle sitting here -- it's cheaper than Amtrak, and it's only a twenty minute drive to the airport. But, I don't particularly like the airports at either end; my kids in Seattle have to drive twice as far to pick me up at the airport as at King Street and at King Street, we are right in the middle of all the interesting stuff -- the International District, Downtown -- whereas at SeaTac we are ... nowhere except SeaTac.Same at Portland -- it's a neat old depot, easy access, right next to the Pearl district, it's tons of fun to just go to lunch with them. I don't even know where the Portland airport is. I mean, I've been driven there ... seems like we drove and drove and drove ....
I've got a $145 plane ticket to Seattle sitting here -- it's cheaper than Amtrak, and it's only a twenty minute drive to the airport. But, I don't particularly like the airports at either end; my kids in Seattle have to drive twice as far to pick me up at the airport as at King Street and at King Street, we are right in the middle of all the interesting stuff -- the International District, Downtown -- whereas at SeaTac we are ... nowhere except SeaTac.
Then it seems like Montana's best bet would be a stub, say originate at Billings (with maybe a Throughway Bus to connect with the Builder at Fargo, connect at Spokane with the Builder to the west, give one coach to the Seattle section, and a coach and Dining Car to the Portland Section (does Amtrak have spare Diners?). A problem with a reroute is the slower overall time from the West Coast to Chicago will require another full trainset even when things are running on time. This way the majority of passengers who are heading to the West Coast travel by train, and only one locomotive, 2 coaches, and a Diner, are needed as additional cars.
conrailman wrote:First Amtrak needs more Superliner Cars before any new Services began like a New Orders like 500 New Cars. Amtrak Superliner 1 cars are 28 plus Years old and Superliner 2 are 12 Plus Years Old.
I guess I better call my buddy at Greenbrier/Gunderson and have him dust off those sketches for converting the AutoMax articulated cars into articulated Superliners!
And I'll stand by my contention that there will never be two Amtrak routes through Montana. As Michael points out, it is likely that most of the Empire Builder boardings in places like Whitefish et al are coming from the I-90 cities. If there was a revived North Coast Hiawatha, it is likely the Empire Builder boardings would drop precipitously as those patrons switch to the more convenient southern Amtrak trains. Then what would become of the EB?!
No, the best option is to move the EB further south. Those Montana politicos who are pushing for both a new I-90 train while keeping the EB on the High Line really haven't thought things through.
beaulieu wrote:Then it seems like Montana's best bet would be a stub, say originate at Billings (with maybe a Throughway Bus to connect with the Builder at Fargo, connect at Spokane with the Builder to the west, give one coach to the Seattle section, and a coach and Dining Car to the Portland Section (does Amtrak have spare Diners?).
As Dave mentions, I think there would be considerable cannabilization of the Whitefish traffic, but if the Overnighter concept worked well, it still might give a substantial boost to overall Amtrak Empire Builder business, with a minimal investment in trainsets under this option.
Wow, the yard crew in Spokane: not only breaking a westbound train in two, but breaking two trains in two, and reassembling them into two new trains. If they had two diners, decent food, and, oh yes, allowed breakfast to last longer than 45 minutes, that would add an element to the overnight concept that I think would be attractive to travelers.
Might some seasonal routing help in all this?
I took the EB on its 75th anniversary run from East Glacier to Columbus, WI. I had driven a friend who worked as a Park guide during the summer to Glacier in early June, spent a week there, and took Amtrak back. It was a fine trip. Many people got on and off at Minot. Saw coyote and elk along the route. The plains have a beauty if you look for it. I do remember the rough, jointed rail on the Grand Forks segment. Many people from our area have taken the EB to Glacier and back for their summer vacations.
Split the westbound Builder at Williston sending a "complete train" West on the Highline and another one up the Yellowston from Snowdon, MT, through Sidney to Glendive and thence West on the old NP and MRL. At Williston, each train would combine for the run East - or the Yellowstone section would terminate and transfer its passengers to the Builder. Westbound, the Builder would follow its current route to Spokane (GN) and the Yellowstone would follow its own schedule West to Portland. If scheduling permits, you could have your two-train swap at Spokane.
There will be congestion problems East of Laural with coal trains.
The MRL is Class 4 single track CTC, good for 79 MPH where not curve limited.
As for Spokane loadings, AMTK does not have the equipment to do what needs to be done to garner traffic. It needs four coaches and four or more sleepers to load about 9 PM, bed down the passengers, and the appropriate trains would pick them up.
It wouldn't happen (I don't think), but operating the Yellowstone connection East on the MILW with a connection from Terry (or Miles City) up to the High Line would provide a very direct connection to the Twin Cities and much better connections East. The Yellowstone connection would not need to be operated to Chicago. If this were to be done, each train could operate "independently" so that the arrivals and departures at each end and with any connections mid-route could be scheduled to maximize traffic.
Another suggestion would be to turn the Yellowstone connection South at the Twin Cities to Saint Louis.
Does AMTK have sufficient Heritage equipment in good repair to fill out a train such as we are talking about in this thread? I doubt it, but if so, with a couple of Domes, ... ... ... .
Dave's suggestion of operating down the UP from Silverbow to Los Angeles is a service that appears to fill a need. It would need to operate from Great Falls to Helena, West to Garrison and back to Silverbow (Butte), and South to Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Salt Lake, Reno and Los Angeles. Salt Lake to Los Angeles hosted the Desert Wind which made connections with the Zepher and the Pioneer at Salt Lake. You could travel from Seattle to Los Angeles with a change of trains at Salt Lake about as fast as via San Francisco.
kenneo wrote: Split the westbound Builder at Williston sending a "complete train" West on the Highline and another one up the Yellowston from Snowdon, MT, through Sidney to Glendive and thence West on the old NP and MRL. At Williston, each train would combine for the run East - or the Yellowstone section would terminate and transfer its passengers to the Builder. Westbound, the Builder would follow its current route to Spokane (GN) and the Yellowstone would follow its own schedule West to Portland. If scheduling permits, you could have your two-train swap at Spokane.There will be congestion problems East of Laural with coal trains.The MRL is Class 4 single track CTC, good for 79 MPH where not curve limited.As for Spokane loadings, AMTK does not have the equipment to do what needs to be done to garner traffic. It needs four coaches and four or more sleepers to load about 9 PM, bed down the passengers, and the appropriate trains would pick them up.It wouldn't happen (I don't think), but operating the Yellowstone connection East on the MILW with a connection from Terry (or Miles City) up to the High Line would provide a very direct connection to the Twin Cities and much better connections East. The Yellowstone connection would not need to be operated to Chicago. If this were to be done, each train could operate "independently" so that the arrivals and departures at each end and with any connections mid-route could be scheduled to maximize traffic.Another suggestion would be to turn the Yellowstone connection South at the Twin Cities to Saint Louis.Does AMTK have sufficient Heritage equipment in good repair to fill out a train such as we are talking about in this thread? I doubt it, but if so, with a couple of Domes, ... ... ... .Dave's suggestion of operating down the UP from Silverbow to Los Angeles is a service that appears to fill a need. It would need to operate from Great Falls to Helena, West to Garrison and back to Silverbow (Butte), and South to Idaho Falls, Pocatello, Salt Lake, Reno and Los Angeles. Salt Lake to Los Angeles hosted the Desert Wind which made connections with the Zepher and the Pioneer at Salt Lake. You could travel from Seattle to Los Angeles with a change of trains at Salt Lake about as fast as via San Francisco.
I still favor getting rid of the Portland/Seattle split in Spokane. Just head on to one or the other and let the I-5 train take up the slack.
A longer split to allow Montana to have it's cake and eat it too just doesn't seem logistically possible, nor is the extra equipment available. Just keep the EB intact from Seattle to Chicago via Stampede Pass, Missoula, Billings, Bismark, Fargo, Twin Cities.
An I-15 train should probably run from Calgary (in conjuction with VIA) to LA. Too bad BNSF embargoed the Helena/Great Falls line. How about running from Calgary over Crownest via Eastport down to Sandpoint, then via MRL from Sandpoint through Missoula down to Silver Bow, then via UP the rest of the way via Pocatello, SLC, Vegas, to LA?
Dave
The reason I postulate keeping the Spokane split - even making it a 4-way job - is to provide good scheduling to both Portland and Seattle. The problem with going either to Seattle or Portland 1st and then continuing on to the other is that the trip is 3-4 hours (depending on whether a Talgo or Superliner). Whichever station is last is just not going to get traffic. Also, if you don't do a split (I prefer to use the word swap) at Spokane, you force, say, Seattle bound folks to still drive to the Highline to board the Builder and Portland bound folks to drive South to board the proposed train.
Also, like I mentioned above, with Spokane being a 0001-0100 stop, you just aren't going to get proper traffic loads. To illustrate, the UP many years ago operated a service between Boise and Spokane that required a change of trains in Hinkle at "0-dark-30". No one used it because they didn't want to (1) sit up in a coach all night and get woke up to change trains and (2) get woke up in their sleeper, get dressed, change trains, settle back into a new sleeper so that in a very few hours, they could get woke up in Spokane (or Boise).
So, the UP added a coach and a sleeper to the City of Portland at Boise, pre-loaded several hours in advance, cut the cars off at Hinkle where the train from Pendleton (which also was preloaded the night before) and the eastbound Portland Rose left Spokane cars from Portland at Hinkle, picked up these cars and went on to Spokane. Until the airplane did the service in, the train usually ran full.
My point is, if you provide a service that is desired by the people you are trying to serve, it will usually become a going concern. Spokane simply is not being served with the present system. Neither, for that matter, is Billings. An overnight Billings-Portland train swaping cars at Spokane with the Builder would probably run full. Horizon Air sends two or so 100 passenger jets Portland-Billings each day, so there is a market.
And, yes, I know the cars are not available - at least not yet. But they could be.
Keep any train serving Spokane and Seattle away from Pasco and Stampede. You will only succeed in adding hours to the trip and not gain any traffic at Pasco. If you simply must go over Stampede, rebuild the MILW from Lind to Ellensburg and run the train that way. Or, run a train from Boise to Seattle over Pasco and Stampede.
The reason that I did not include the logical end point of an I-15 service at Calgary is our good friends, Homeland Security. Their INS division has all but killed off service from New York and Chicago into Canada with their boarder protection antics. Calgary-Great Falls or Eastport couldn't fair any better. Which is a real shame. Unreasonable paranoia.
Someone wondered about re-opening Homestake. Why? The only reason for that route was to get into Butte. At one time, Butte WAS Montana. No more. Dead economy. Go via Helena. And if you really want an I-15 train, rebuild the Two Bridges branch and extend it on to Dillon. Saves two crossings of the Continental Divide and several hundred miles of slow rail.
There are some interesting ideas here but they far exceed the scope of the proposal. The limited addition of a parallel train to the EB route will be a hard enough sell. No one wants to drop the service on the High Line since that is the area where there is no or little airline service whereas the low line has better and unsubsidized air service. Ideas such as routing trains via UT, WY and CO were floated last time around and drew very limited response. So drop them from this proposal.
The bottlenecks on the MRL are Laurel Yard and Mullan Pass. So I am sure MRL would like to see the train routed over the Butte line and gain the benefits or haveing an alternative to the Helena routing. Coal and grain mtys could be routed via Butte to relieve congestion on the Helena line. That could be a large carrot for the MRL to consider hosting the passenger trains.
Do not expect any track reconstruction towards Dillon or anywhere else. Bringing the Butte Hill back into service would be the only possible reconstruction at this time. Detours to Anaconda are similarly not likely, Anaconda to Butte is less than 30 miles but would involve backtracking the train to provide service.
No one expects any construction or operational funding in any federal budget requests in the near future.
arbfbe wrote: There are some interesting ideas here but they far exceed the scope of the proposal. The limited addition of a parallel train to the EB route will be a hard enough sell. No one wants to drop the service on the High Line since that is the area where there is no or little airline service whereas the low line has better and unsubsidized air service. Ideas such as routing trains via UT, WY and CO were floated last time around and drew very limited response. So drop them from this proposal.
Keep in mind though, if Michael's observations hold true regarding the fact that most of the Montana boardings of the current EB are coming up from the I-90 cities, then even a minimal parallel train from Billings to Missoula and Spokane will have a significant negative effect on the High Line EB. I think my perceptions hold true - that Montana cannot host two parallel trains, ergo either one or the other must go.
And why do people keep throwing into the mix the fact that most of the US Highway 2 cities have little or no alternative transportation? So what!? Why is that supposed to be relevant to this discussion? There's literally thousands of such communities across the nation that have no air service, bus service, OR Amtrak service, and those towns haven't dried up and blown away due to such circumstances. Why are the High Line towns deserving of such premadona status not afforded to other such towns?
Rather than reopening that convaluted line, wouldn't it make more sense for MRL to construct a "fly by" line of 3% or 4% gradient from the east portal down to Skelly Gulch(?)? Bypass the switchbacks. Even a parallel tunnel to Mullan might do the trick, especially if it can be built with a westward downgrade. Then use Mullan for eastbounds and the new tunnel for westbounds. I know such things are expensive, but with modern tunneling equipment a two mile tunnel might be feasable, and reopening a poor route makes no sense to me. Maybe part of the expense could be paid for by the feds, since the feds are just throwing money at Class I's right now!
Do not expect any track reconstruction towards Dillon or anywhere else.
Of course not, since it would require cooperation of UP, BNSF, and MRL to get the I-15 rail corridor reopened. The integrated rail system does not allow for such logical ideas.
nanaimo73 wrote:What happened to the cars used by the Montana Daylight, the last passenger service on MRL ?
Last time I saw them, they were being stored in Sandpoint ID, but that was a while ago. It might make sense for Montana and Amtrak to lease them for an I-90 train, but you'd still have the other problems with the idea of a second Montana Amtrak train.
The cars were owned by investors in the Portland area. They have all been sold and scattered though a number may have ended up in Alaska.
This is not a proposal to get MRL into the passenger business, it is a proposal to get Amrtak to run a train on the low line.
futuremodal wrote: arbfbe wrote: There are some interesting ideas here but they far exceed the scope of the proposal. The limited addition of a parallel train to the EB route will be a hard enough sell. No one wants to drop the service on the High Line since that is the area where there is no or little airline service whereas the low line has better and unsubsidized air service. Ideas such as routing trains via UT, WY and CO were floated last time around and drew very limited response. So drop them from this proposal.Keep in mind though, if Michael's observations hold true regarding the fact that most of the Montana boardings of the current EB are coming up from the I-90 cities, then even a minimal parallel train from Billings to Missoula and Spokane will have a significant negative effect on the High Line EB. I think my perceptions hold true - that Montana cannot host two parallel trains, ergo either one or the other must go.And why do people keep throwing into the mix the fact that most of the US Highway 2 cities have little or no alternative transportation? So what!? Why is that supposed to be relevant to this discussion? There's literally thousands of such communities across the nation that have no air service, bus service, OR Amtrak service, and those towns haven't dried up and blown away due to such circumstances. Why are the High Line towns deserving of such premadona status not afforded to other such towns?If the passenger load patterns stay the same then perhaps the #8 section of the train would run the low line and the #28 section would run the high line.The topic of lack or alternatives in transportation on the high line keeps getting interjected into the argument because rail service is important to the High Liners. They come to the hearings and write to members of Congress and local newspapers about their needs. Until they all go away the point will continue to be made. The bottlenecks on the MRL are Laurel Yard and Mullan Pass. So I am sure MRL would like to see the train routed over the Butte line and gain the benefits or haveing an alternative to the Helena routing. Coal and grain mtys could be routed via Butte to relieve congestion on the Helena line. That could be a large carrot for the MRL to consider hosting the passenger trains.Rather than reopening that convaluted line, wouldn't it make more sense for MRL to construct a "fly by" line of 3% or 4% gradient from the east portal down to Skelly Gulch(?)? Bypass the switchbacks. Even a parallel tunnel to Mullan might do the trick, especially if it can be built with a westward downgrade. Then use Mullan for eastbounds and the new tunnel for westbounds. I know such things are expensive, but with modern tunneling equipment a two mile tunnel might be feasable, and reopening a poor route makes no sense to me. Maybe part of the expense could be paid for by the feds, since the feds are just throwing money at Class I's right now!First, there are NO switch backs on the original NP line between Terra Firma (Blossberg), Tip Top and Skyline. There are 4 trestles which would have to be reconstructed. Only a thorough analysis could determine if this alternative would be cheaper than the upgrade of the Logan to Garrison route. A new tunnel is completely out of the question unless BNSF is willing to substantially fund that construction.Do not expect any track reconstruction towards Dillon or anywhere else. Of course not, since it would require cooperation of UP, BNSF, and MRL to get the I-15 rail corridor reopened. The integrated rail system does not allow for such logical ideas.
If the passenger load patterns stay the same then perhaps the #8 section of the train would run the low line and the #28 section would run the high line.The topic of lack or alternatives in transportation on the high line keeps getting interjected into the argument because rail service is important to the High Liners. They come to the hearings and write to members of Congress and local newspapers about their needs. Until they all go away the point will continue to be made. The bottlenecks on the MRL are Laurel Yard and Mullan Pass. So I am sure MRL would like to see the train routed over the Butte line and gain the benefits or haveing an alternative to the Helena routing. Coal and grain mtys could be routed via Butte to relieve congestion on the Helena line. That could be a large carrot for the MRL to consider hosting the passenger trains.
If the passenger load patterns stay the same then perhaps the #8 section of the train would run the low line and the #28 section would run the high line.
The topic of lack or alternatives in transportation on the high line keeps getting interjected into the argument because rail service is important to the High Liners. They come to the hearings and write to members of Congress and local newspapers about their needs. Until they all go away the point will continue to be made.
First, there are NO switch backs on the original NP line between Terra Firma (Blossberg), Tip Top and Skyline. There are 4 trestles which would have to be reconstructed. Only a thorough analysis could determine if this alternative would be cheaper than the upgrade of the Logan to Garrison route. A new tunnel is completely out of the question unless BNSF is willing to substantially fund that construction.Do not expect any track reconstruction towards Dillon or anywhere else.
First, there are NO switch backs on the original NP line between Terra Firma (Blossberg), Tip Top and Skyline. There are 4 trestles which would have to be reconstructed. Only a thorough analysis could determine if this alternative would be cheaper than the upgrade of the Logan to Garrison route. A new tunnel is completely out of the question unless BNSF is willing to substantially fund that construction.
Again, this is not a proposal to create an I-15 passenger corridor. That is being saved for another time.
Correction: When I said "switchbacks" I meant reverse curves. I had my highway cap on at the time, and in highway lingo a switchback is simply a 180 degree curve on a grade.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.