Empire Builder moved to a more southerly route?

[arbfbe]

Topic update.

Montana's legislature adjourned Friday about noon without finishing work on all the spending resolutions need to make the State government function after July 1.  While things seemed to be close to resolution on Thursday morning the Republican House leader threw a tantrum, got personal and vulgar with the Governor and walked out the door.  So Thursday afternoon and Friday morning were spent with both parties posturing and blustering and nothing got done.

So a special session must be held prior to July 1 and it seems like all the money appropriations are back to ground zero.  So while this session of the legislature did not elect to spend the needed money to study a new train on the NP/BN/MRL south line the next itteration might come through.  It is all politics until the economics may force the issue.

On to page 10! Hey if it is Montana, MRL or passenger trains, you know it is going to be a long one.  I wonder why, we are just such a quiet little bunch over here in the northern Rockies. 

[cordon]

Absolutely fascinating thread.  I am especially surprised by the data on ridership and losses per seat mile.  I saved that part for further reading.

I went back and read the whole thing, and I didn't see anything about bus service, which appears here:

http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/manuals/public_trans_guide.pdf

There is no alternative public ground transportation along the northern route.  Maybe, in the free market, some would appear if the EB were to move.  But that's a maybe, not a foregone conclusion.

There is already bus service along the southern route, and Interstate highways serve it.  So, it seems that adequate ground transportation exists along both routes now.

If we move the EB, then I think the northern tier would get shortchanged.  Some people have said that many of the passengers on the EB have origins/destinations that the southern route would serve just as well.  I assume that's one of the items the study would examine.

But what hits me between the eyes is that moving the EB would be disturbing AMTRAK's second best performing train.  One should consider very carefully all the likely effects before doing something like that. 

On the other hand, I have always treated analyses and studies with much skepticism.  The most important, and often the most contentious, part of any analysis is the assumptions.  One incorrect assumption will spoil the analysis.  Perhaps adding a train along the southern route on a trial basis would produce more realistic information than an analysis and expose effects that people might not anticipate.

 

 

[arbfbe]

cordon,

The ONLY people advocating moving the EB south are some of the folks on this thread.  The citizens involved in the Congressional town meetings want to do what you last paragraph proposed, try a train on the southern line through the state and see if it is viable.  They understand how important the EB is to the residents already served by existing trains.

[arbfbe]

The NY Times weighs in with a show of support if you sort of read between the lines.  After all you cannot get to Montana on a train that does not exist.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/opinion/29mcnamer.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[MichaelSol]

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.

The Hertz rental car counter is not in a closet.  It has doors surrounding the desk area.  I arrived on the Empire Builder in Whitefish in September and rented a car.  The car and the gentleman handling the paperwork arrived within 15 minutes of the train. 

No rental car lot?  Next time, check the parking spaces west of the depot marked "Hertz."

Gosh, it's been so long since you've posted to call me names, I almost forgot what true disinformation was like.

Saw the parking spaces. They're always empty of rental cars. Note your remark: the agent "and the car" arrived within 15 minutes ... they don't even keep cars there, as your comment plainly acknowledges. Other cars are usually parked there. "It has doors surrounding the desk area." Ha! You will argue anything even remotely associated with "The Empire Builder."

It's a closet, and it's rarely used.

Did you really feel a need on this one?

 

 

[MichaelSol]

Thanks to Michael for acknowledging (unlike in years past) that the Empire Builder really goes to Portland.  

This arises from a positively bizarre series of posts you made to a Milwaukee Road list where, when it was pointed out that the OH served a larger population area than the Empire Builder, you exploded into a data dump of the populations of every community on the GN, included connecting trains, left out most of the large communities on the Milwaukee, and proclaimed some weird result -- leaving out Portland. Then, when the numbers simply didn't work for you, you included Portland -- which was served by the SPS -- which you [not me] had left out in your previous explosion of indignation wherein any, any, statistic must for some reason come out in favor of the Empire Builder or the Great Northern Railway. It has been described by others, even your co-workers, as a bizarre obsession, and it is.

I pointed out, fine, if you include connecting trains through joint operations, then the Milwaukee also served Portland in the same fashion, as a joint operator of the Cities fleet. Well, by the time you got done writing your special set of rules, comparing an EB operation on a given date with a OH operation on another completely different date and circumstance, with certain connecting trains thrown in for the EB, but none for the MILW, and freight under different circumstances, rather than comparable circumstances, you had managed to prove just about anything you had cared to -- and you made it personal and you were finally moderated.

And I see that you are back, and you instantly make it personal, again.

To wit: where you compare a passenger speed up in 1962 with ... nothing, speeds in 1961 when I doubt any reasonable person would expect MILW to be revamping its passenger schedule in the five months during the winter and spring that it was last running. Similarly wth Pacific Zip in 1971 -- we know MILWs track speeds were declining, but why couldn't GN offer the same speeds in 1966? They tried -- they just couldn't do it. GN officials acknowledged in ICC hearings that they couldn't, and that it was one reason they originally opposed the Gateway Conditions -- because MILW could outrun them in the West, was outrunning them in the West, and they felt that was a competitive threat. That's what they testified to.

But, it's not the comparables you seek -- its a GN obsession that is completely independent of historical reference.

Of course, Michael would think the Milwaukee Road route would be faster, even if it would have had the wherewithal to survive.  The fastest passenger train ever between Chicago and Seattle was the 1962 Empire Builder and the fastest freight train ever scheduled between Chicago and Seattle was the 1971 BN Pacific Zip, largely on the same route.  The "Gentleman's Agreement" (between GN, NP, and MILW) not withstanding, in 1961, the last year of Milwaukee Road passenger service west of Deer Lodge, the westbound Empire Builder was a whopping 2 hours, 44 minutes faster than the Olympian Hiawatha between Chicago and Spokane and over 2 hours faster Chicago to Seattle. 

[nanaimo73]

When was I90 completed through Msla ( not including the Wallace section) ? Did it effect the EB as much as the OH and the NCL ?

(edited post)

[MichaelSol]

"This arises from a positively bizarre series of posts you made to a Milwaukee Road list where, when it was pointed out that the OH served a larger population area than the Empire Builder, you exploded into a data dump of the populations of every community on the GN, included connecting trains, left out most of the large communities on the Milwaukee, and proclaimed some weird result -- leaving out Portland."

I love this stuff. Do you guys live in the same part of Msla ?

Doesn't have anything to do with me or Missoula. At another point, the NP was in his sights. It's an obsession:

http://www.gngoat.org/gn-np.htm

"Mark took the time and trouble to sit down and put together this historical comparison of the Great Northern and the Northern Pacific."

"It is my opinion that many fans of the Northern Pacific either suffer from an inferiority complex or take themselves too seriously" because, according to the essay, compared to the GN, the NP suffered because of the "preponderance of facts that point to the conclusion, that, indeed, it ['s competitor, the GN] was "Great"."

NP fans have an "inferiority complex"? They "take themselves too seriously"?

Compared to who? Mark Meyer?

Because NP was increasing its transcon carloadings while GN's were declining? Because, financially, NP was the stronger company?

Give me a break. I don't even understand that kind of talk. I mean what kind of a person goes out and makes a "psychological assessment" of some other railroad's railfans. I think it's weird. I've never known anyone so obsessed with trashing competitors of the Great Northern Railway, even to the point of interjecting it into Amtrak service to Whitefish, Montana in 2007.

 

[Anonymous]

cordon,

The ONLY people advocating moving the EB south are some of the folks on this thread.  The citizens involved in the Congressional town meetings want to do what you last paragraph proposed, try a train on the southern line through the state and see if it is viable.  They understand how important the EB is to the residents already served by existing trains.

arbfbe,

To be fair, it's really only myself who is advocating an outright move of the EB down through the more populous areas of Montana.  You can call me out by name, I'm fine with the critisism.

The point I'm trying to make is that Amtrak is under a mandate to improve it's cost/revenue ratio to at least approach the break even point if at all possible.  The EB is the best performing.........er, I mean the least wasteful of taxpayer dollars.......and is doing so plying through relatively unpopulated territory during daylight (read - normal boarding) hours.  My hypothesis is that by moving the EB through the more populous portions of Montana might, just might, result in the EB achieving what everyone assumes is an impossibility in the US, namely running a passenger train service that covers all it's operating costs.

Eliminating the split in Spokane would also aid in approaching this milestone.  It is not needed, and it is costing a whole separate crew to maintain for a handful of patrons.  Keep the train intact to the westside, then let the Amtrak I-5 service take up the slack.

I think when push comes to shove, most others will also see it this way.  It's logical, reasonable, and begs an implementation on a trial basis.

God forbid if logic and reason enter the Amtrak mindset, huh?!

[MichaelSol]

When was I90 completed through Msla ( not including the Wallace section) ? Did it effect the EB as much as the OH and the NCL ?

(edited post)

If I am remembering correctly, it was about 1965, so the OH was gone. I have no doubt that the Interstate hurt the North Coast Limited, probably not the Empire Builder -- partly because the Empire Builder was a cut-rate deal, trying to buy or keep market share. NP took a more business-like approach. It was probably cheaper to take the Empire Builder than any other form of transportation.

From 1957, probably the last year that the three railroads offered competitive service [these are intercity train numbers, do not include commuter operations]:

Average distance hauled per passenger:

GN 351.01 miles, NP 402.81

In terms of equipment utilization:

MILW $24,904 annual revenue per passenger car
GN $9,670
NP $17,454

It's probably clear why GN hauled more passengers than NP, but managed to earn less:

GN 1,279,099
NP 792,781

Revenue:

MILW $0.03 per passenger mile
GN $0.01
NP $0.02

GN had to be pricing at the rock bottom of the rail passenger market. That's undoubtedly why it had one of the worst passenger operating ratios in the country: 202.9%.

Interestingly, the exact opposite of the current train operating on that route, which has one of the most favorable operating ratios in the country. Basically, GN was giving away seats and claiming "success."

If Amtrak followed the same policy today, it would probably be running the Empire Builder in several sections.

 

[spokyone]

 

To be fair, it's really only myself who is advocating an outright move of the EB down through the more populous areas of Montana. 

Not Just you.

[Anonymous]

 

To be fair, it's really only myself who is advocating an outright move of the EB down through the more populous areas of Montana. 

Not Just you.

Well, primarily me........

[Murphy Siding]

     Several of you have mentioned that for this to happen, Montana would have to pony up some money.  Do the states that have Amtrak service now, contribute funding?  Or, are you saying that having Montana contribute funds is the only way this would get anywhere?

-Murphy Siding, in a state with 168 less Amtrak miles than Canada.

[n012944]

     Several of you have mentioned that for this to happen, Montana would have to pony up some money.  Do the states that have Amtrak service now, contribute funding?  Or, are you saying that having Montana contribute funds is the only way this would get anywhere?

-Murphy Siding, in a state with 168 less Amtrak miles than Canada.

Some do, for increased local service.  

Bert

[spokyone]

Illinois contributes for Springfield, St.Louis, Quincy from Chicago. Wis and ILL jointly fund Chicago to Milwaukee. I do not know about the long distance trains originating in Chicago.

[Dakguy201]

     Several of you have mentioned that for this to happen, Montana would have to pony up some money.  Do the states that have Amtrak service now, contribute funding?  Or, are you saying that having Montana contribute funds is the only way this would get anywhere?

-Murphy Siding, in a state with 168 less Amtrak miles than Canada.

Yes, several states are directly underwriting various trains.  Examples in the Midwest are:

Chicago - Carbondale (Saluki & Illini),  Chicago - Port Huron (Blue Water), Chicago - Pontiac (Wolverine), St Louis - Kansas City (Ann Rutledge & Kansas Mule), Chicago - Quincy (Illinois Zephyr & Carl Sandberg).  There are probably more.  Most of those trains are new within the last few years.

Seemingly then, AMTRAK would be happy to run a service connecting with the Empire Builder at Williston, Shelby or Sandpoint, provided Montana would underwrite that service.  Montana just refused to appropriate $100,000 to do a feasibility study of any version of a southern route, so it does not seem probable they would agree to an annual subsidy.  That is why some individuals are eager to change the route of the present Empire Builder rather than starting a connecting service.

Detouring over a southern route involves a longer ride.  I am not familiar with the roadbeds involved, so I don't know what shape they are in nor the degree of curvature, but just eyeballing the route(s) you have to be talking an additional eight hours.  What does that imply in terms of additional equipment sets, staff, facilities and so on?  We don't know, and Montana won't provide the money to find out.

A logical solution to the problem is the two state solution.  From Fargo, go west to Bismark and Billings rather than north to Grand Forks -- essentially a NP or Interstate 94 route.  The downside to doing that is leaving many towns on the current route with no alternative to the automobile.

I just don't have the data to make a decision among these choices. 

 

[VerMontanan]

Mark, it's been years since the EB was pulled by F7's. 

Of course, Dave.  But the official defiinition of "engine" remains about the same, which was my point.

Thank you for acknowledging that the EB is a money loser, probably due to the fact that it travel's through sparsely populated territory.  Who knows, if the EB actually passed through Montana's more populous cities, it might come close to breaking even!

Great example of how you take things out of context.  Yup, the Empire Builder loses money, as does every other non-tourist passenger train in the country.  But except for Auto Train, which serves almost an exclusive tourist market with only two stations (Lorton and Sanford), the Empire Builder loses less money than any other long distance Amtrak train when judged in the context of the figures I provided in the previous post.  Since the Empire Builder passes through the territory with the sparsest population, but loses the least amount of money, it is therefore illogical to assume that passing through more populous cities would mean the train would lose less money.  If your assertion were true, ALL the other long distance trains would lose less money than the Empire Builder, but they don't.

You are suggesting ridership would go down if EB was routed through more populous territory.  I am suggesting EB ridership would increase if rerouted through more populous territory.  Logic backs my ascertion, emotion backs yours.

No, Dave.  Logic and ridership statistics back mine.  I don't know what backs yours. 

Last time I looked, Great Falls is closer to Helena than to Shelby or Havre.  Rerouting via MRL would make it more convient for GF folks as well as those from Butte, Bozeman, Helena, et al.  As for Lethbridgians, hey it's bad enough we subsidize Americans using Amtrak, we don't need to subsidize Canadians as well.

The thing that amazes me, Dave, is that not only do you ignore facts, you seem to have limited access to reference materials.  Great Falls is closer to Helena than Shelby?  91 miles to Helena, and 86 to Shelby (source: 2007 Rand McNally Road Atlas).  Not only is 86 less than 91, but the drive takes longer because of speed restrictions in Wolf Creek Canyon (55 instead of 75).  The drive from Great Falls to Shelby is also less likely to be affected by the weather, which can get nasty in the mountains between Cascade and Helena.  Just shows your limited knowledge of Montana.  As for people from Lethbridge riding Amtrak, as long as they pay the fare, who cares? Their number is not great, put the point is simply that more of them ride it than your earlier contention that most of the riders are from Southern Montana, which is not the case.

You're saying Amtrak ridership at Flagstaff should be higher than that at Whitefish due to the higher population base, but it's not which *proves* something.  Yet you acknowledge that Arizona has better flight connections than Montana cities, so doesn't that explain Amtrak's relatively low ridership numbers in Flagstaff?

Absolutely not.  Again, you're just fishing.  Southern Montana has excellent air service, clearly on par with that of Phoenix, considering the relative populations. 

What would that alleged "threat" be?  Please explain yourself when you make such nonsensical statements.

The reason I care about rerouting the EB to more populous areas is simply a desire to see my tax dollars derive better value, or in this case less of a negative value.  On a larger scale, I believe it is impossible to judge the value of passenger rail travel in the US as it relates to today's transportation scene if said passenger rail is an uninspired federally run entity stuck using 1930's logistics.  My objection to Amtrak isn't that the feds are enforcing a niche example of open access (whether you acknowledge it or not), it's that they are running it instead of supporting private enterprise running it.  The tax dollars spent for Amtrak would be better served if the money was used to support private passenger rail ventures getting established, and then see if it is possible for such enterprises to achieve self sustainment.

And if a private firm was charged with running a Northern Tier passenger train service, you can bet your subsidized bottom dollar they'd route it through the most populous/least travel competitive client base.

I don't know what the threat would be, Dave, but then I don't know why you even started the thread.  Since you're concerned about your tax dollars, assuming that you acknowledge Amtrak is going to be around, then any logical person would applaud the Empire Builder.   A private firm is not going to take over passenger train service in this country (the freight railroads tried it and they wanted out), but the next best thing would be a route that there is tremendous popular support for in online communities, the highest ridership in the country, the least per-mile cost of running the train, and a contracting railroad that tries to run the service on time.  This is, of course, the Empire Builder route.   The last thing anyone with any business savvy or someone who cares about how their tax dollars are spent would want to do is to end this service and switch to a route that takes so much longer, an entire extra set of equipment would be required just to provide the same amount of service (probably $25 million right there), and countless more millions for station facilities, track and grade crossing warning device changes and improvements....all in the off chance that this COULD be the only route in the country that MIGHT handle more people than the Empire Builder does right now.

Start a new thread

[VerMontanan]

 

And I see that you are back, and you instantly make it personal, again.

.

 

Michael,

Whenever anyone stands up to you, you consider it "personal."    Kind of thin-skinned to be a real railroader it seems.

With regard to the Portland issue, I stand by my post on the Milwaukee list, still available at:

http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/MILW/message/39330

For those other than Michael, the point simply was that I suggested a(not the) reason for the demise of the Olympian Hiawatha was, unlike its GN and NP counterparts, it did not directly serve Portland.  Michael countered that GN and NP service was a "connection".  The comparison did not include the City of Portland, which did operate over the Milwaukee Road from Chicago to Omaha.  The focus was on the Olympian Hiawatha, and its direct competitors, which were the trains of the GN and NP.  GN and NP trains did serve Portland via their subsidiary SP&S.  The Olympian Hiawatha had no good connections to Portland, nor through cars.  That the Milwaukee somehow served Portland by its handling of the City of Portland for almost 500 miles between Chicago and Omaha might be a valid point if considering ridership from Chicago to Portland only, but supposedly the Olympian Hiawatha (and its direct competitors) existed to serve intermediate markets, too.  Other points were the superior connections to cities like Duluth, Winnipeg, and Vancouver, BC on GN where the competition offered no such service or less convenient or comfortable service, and the atmosphere of quality service starting in 1947 when the Empire Builder became the first post-WWII western streamliner and in 1951 when the GN was the only train to field two bona fide streamliners (unlike any of the competition) between the Upper Midwest and Pacific Northwest. 

As for Michael's never ending ability to quote figures in these forums, such as showing the poor financial and operational performance of Great Northern passenger trains, and other aspects of the GN (relative to the Milwaukee)... they seem to be tempered by reality.  For instance, my Northwest vacations again this summer should include watching an unending parade of trains traverse Marias Pass on Montana's busiest railroad, sitting on the porch of the historic Glacier Park Lodge watching a passenger train arrive at the adjacent train station as has been possible since 1913, and riding the upgraded equipment on America's most popular train, the Empire Builder.  Oh, and also, some friends from Missoula are going to take me to the Hiawatha Trail to ride bikes from near the St. Paul Pass tunnel down the old railroad right-of-way to near Avery, Idaho.  Sometimes, history can be a precursor to reality.

[MichaelSol]

 

And I see that you are back, and you instantly make it personal, again.

.

Michael,

Whenever anyone stands up to you, you consider it "personal."    Kind of thin-skinned to be a real railroader it seems.

No, it's because you change the rules as necessary to support your Great Northern cult. You left Portland out of your initial ridiculous post. Then you added Portland and connecting trains when the numbers didn't add up the way you wanted. Because that's what its all about with you, manipulating facts. You've been doing it for seven years. The MILW road list, experienced railroaders, are sick of you. One long time railroader finally accused of you of simply lobbing grenades without having any real information [12/21/2003, 6:55 p.m.]

Not having ever been on the property, you tried to lecture long time engine crews about helper districts. 11/03/01 Mark Meyer: " .... From the summit of St. Paul Pass, the train could continue with its 3-unit consist to Beverly, where a 3-unit helper would be required for the assault on the Saddle Mountains." You didn't have a clue. You were shot down 15 different ways by experienced trainmen, and including a retired BN dispatcher who knew the territory well having dispatched from a joint agency. They all called you on it. You didn't have the faintest idea how that railroad worked. But, you have the audacity to argue these things ultimately always to portray the GN in the best light. And if the facts get in the way ... too bad for the facts.

Bizarrely, you attempted to claim Milwaukee Road did not serve Portland on any connecting trains. Whatever it took to win an argument. Kind of like claiming a Hertz agency is not located in a closet because, you stoutly assert, "It has doors surrounding the desk area" which to you 1) is actually worth arguing and 2) has substantial probative meaning.

Kind of thin-skinned to be in the real world, it seems, if comments like that get your "Goat."

 

[greyhounds]

VerMontanan,

I think we need to sit down and drink some beer.

We might have a common point of agreement. 

 

[Murphy Siding]

...................Not having ever been on the property, you tried to lecture long time engine crews about helper districts. 11/03/01 Mark Meyer:...................................... "

You guys have been having an on-going fued for 5-1/2 Years?

[MichaelSol]

...................Not having ever been on the property, you tried to lecture long time engine crews about helper districts. 11/03/01 Mark Meyer:...................................... "

You guys have been having an on-going fued for 5-1/2 Years?

Nope -- he was lecturing real railroaders on a railroad he'd never been on. They basically called him ... well, he was put in his place. One "real railroader" finally told Meyer: "perhaps it'd do you a world of good to gather up your stuff and go home. Form your own list. Otherwise, qwitcher whining and sniveling." 2755.

And I don't know what happened to the NP people -- I guess he finally drove them away by calling them names.

Wonder what kind of a person does that stuff? The kind of person who attacks railfans of some railroad as having "inferiority complexes".

Here's just how bizarre it has been:

On 17 Jun 2005, 10:42:26, I had the misfortune of stating a truth about the Milwaukee vs the Great Northern:

"Railroaders will recall back in the old days that both GN and NP, if they had to reroute their passenger services west of Spokane, preferred to route over the Milwaukee to rerouting over their sister roads. Routing over their sister roads, both would arrive late at King Street Station. Over the Milwaukee, both would arrive on time or ahead of schedule.

"Despite loss of time switching in Spokane, the Empire Builder could still make Seattle on time over the Milwaukee as it was a faster route than GN between Spokane and Seattle."

Meyer responded:

"I have to disagree with this assertion."

Thereupon he undertook his usual dissertation on the heavenly glories of the Great Northern Railway. It was simply impossible, as a matter of ideology, that the Great Northern might be slower into Seattle from Spokane than the Milwaukee Road. After his extended prologue, he finally produced his penultimate proof, he stated, from the 1960 Official Guide:

From Spokane to Seattle:

MILW train 15, Olympian Hiawatha, 7 hours 45 minutes

GN train 31, Empire Builder, 8 hours 5 minutes.

GN train 27, Western Star, 8 hours 15 minutes.

NP train 25, North Coast Limited, 8 hours 43 minutes.

NP train 1, North Coast Limited, 10 hours 28 minutes. [He meant Mainstreeter]

Well, he plopped that down like a triumphant chicken that had just found a fat grasshopper. It was like he didn't even understand what he had just posted. He doesn't even read his own stuff. He thought it proved his point -- because of course he has to be right, so the data must support him. It was almost embarrassing to read it, realizing he didn't understand what it said.

Yes, he would "just have to disagree" with the assertion. Simply bizarre to have generated any kind of response at all, let alone his self-appointed role of "standing up to" any set of facts that might put the GN in a bad light. Obsessive? Reactionary? Compulsive? It is a typical example of Mark Meyer's postings on various forums -- pick a fight based on nothing at all; just to pick a fight!

How the same person can raise a ruckus "disagreeing" then post the data showing the proposition to be exactly true is beyond rational explanation. Yes, he fabricates arguments, and he fabricates data. He specifically disagrees with statements that he knows are, in fact, true -- just to argue. Trolling, pure and simple. Yes, he has spent an inexplicable amount of time attacking the Northern Pacific RR, and its rail fans whom he thinks are psychologically damaged, compared to the "Great" GN. He can't stand any discussion of MILW Road without a compulsive, and usually factually incorrect, comparison with the Great Northern. Yes, he's been doing it for over seven years.

 

 

[arbfbe]

M Meyer wrote'

"Oh, and also, some friends from Missoula are going to take me to the Hiawatha Trail to ride bikes from near the St. Paul Pass tunnel down the old railroad right-of-way to near Avery, Idaho.  Sometimes, history can be a precursor to reality."

Mark, go for the whole enchelada.  The tunnel is open for passage now.   A bicycle light is required to traverse the enclosed space but it is worth it.  Bring a jacket for that part even in August.  It is almost all downhill east to west.  Have fun.  Smell the residual ozone from the trolley sparks.

  Alan 

[arbfbe]

cordon,

The ONLY people advocating moving the EB south are some of the folks on this thread.  The citizens involved in the Congressional town meetings want to do what you last paragraph proposed, try a train on the southern line through the state and see if it is viable.  They understand how important the EB is to the residents already served by existing trains.

arbfbe,

To be fair, it's really only myself who is advocating an outright move of the EB down through the more populous areas of Montana.  You can call me out by name, I'm fine with the critisism.

The point I'm trying to make is that Amtrak is under a mandate to improve it's cost/revenue ratio to at least approach the break even point if at all possible.  The EB is the best performing.........er, I mean the least wasteful of taxpayer dollars.......and is doing so plying through relatively unpopulated territory during daylight (read - normal boarding) hours.  My hypothesis is that by moving the EB through the more populous portions of Montana might, just might, result in the EB achieving what everyone assumes is an impossibility in the US, namely running a passenger train service that covers all it's operating costs.

Eliminating the split in Spokane would also aid in approaching this milestone.  It is not needed, and it is costing a whole separate crew to maintain for a handful of patrons.  Keep the train intact to the westside, then let the Amtrak I-5 service take up the slack.

I think when push comes to shove, most others will also see it this way.  It's logical, reasonable, and begs an implementation on a trial basis.

God forbid if logic and reason enter the Amtrak mindset, huh?!

I want to try to keep the thread focused upon the hearings this time around.  That does not grand attempts to make vast changes in the current AMTK routings and schedules.  We all have our ideas about what might make a better AMTK but this group is more interested in what will make a better AMTK in Montana without giving up what we have now which is pretty important to the people who use it or who's business depend upon travelers detraining on the high line now.

Something else interesting concerns air service in Missoula, Bozeman, Helena.  It is downright expensive.  I do not fly out of Missoula since the same round trip airfare out of Spokane, 200 miles to the west, is commonly $300 - $350 cheaper.  Bringing in rail service to the west would mean I could take the train to Spokane to take advantage of the reduced air fares.     

[MichaelSol]

Something else interesting concerns air service in Missoula, Bozeman, Helena.  It is downright expensive.  I do not fly out of Missoula since the same round trip airfare out of Spokane, 200 miles to the west, is commonly $300 - $350 cheaper.  Bringing in rail service to the west would mean I could take the train to Spokane to take advantage of the reduced air fares. 

While I keep an eye out for cheap air fares to Portland or Seattle, and usually get them, it is true that flying to anywhere else generally costs a premium and Spokane is the better deal; SeaTac even better yet.  The University sports teams I coach usually end up driving to Spokane because the combined cost of airfare savings for 5-10 people is just so much different. There are a variety of reasons why, notwithstanding it does not represent an urban corridor in any sense, southern Montana to Seattle/Portland through Spokane represents a natural market which the current Empire Builder happens to meet very well, and would no doubt benefit from if there was an actual train operated on the southern route in conjunction with the Empire Builder.

 

[nanaimo73]

 I want to try to keep the thread focused upon the hearings this time around.  That does not grand attempts to make vast changes in the current AMTK routings and schedules.  We all have our ideas about what might make a better AMTK but this group is more interested in what will make a better AMTK in Montana without giving up what we have now which is pretty important to the people who use it or who's business depend upon travelers detraining on the high line now.   

Would the incremental approach work better ?

How about splitting the Portland Empire Builder in Spokane, with some of the cars added to the Empire Builder, while the rest continues to Billings, and returns the following day to Spokane ?

[arbfbe]

Yes, perhaps the incremental approach will work better at times.  Less fingers in the pie, fewer issues to deal with.

I don't think a stub end addition will work as well as a through line.  If the train only goes west out of Billings then you lose the traffic going east out of Billings and Missoula.  If the train only goes east out of Missoula then you lose the traffic going west out of Billings and Missoula.  Each involves going too many miles opposite the way the travelers really want to go before they can connect with #7 and #8 to finally head the way they want to go.

[nanaimo73]

Would all of the problems regarding speed and capacity be east of Billings on BNSF ? Would those problems exist on MRL ?

[arbfbe]

The capacity east of Billings is a BNSF issue.  I note it is CTC controlled all the way so how hard is it to run one passenger train each way in the course of the day.  Coal volume is not yet crippling on the line like it is throughout the PRB.

MRL has the capacity to run the passenger service if needed.  The choke points are terminals and mountain grades.  The NP and BN did a pretty good job of eliminating some of the shorter sidings which could be used for passenger operations.  They also pulled the ABS signals over Evaro Hill which would probably have to be reinstalled for long term passenger service.  MRL has improved the CTC system and added CTC on the mains which BN had left as ABS prior to the MRL take over.  So issues would be holding heavy trains at the bottom of mountain grades until the AMTKs were by and reserving the long mains at stations in Missoula, Helena, Bozeman and Billings for station stops.  It is not uncommon for MRL to use the mains as just another yard track for long and heavy trains especially when they are too long to fit in the yard without fouling the leads.  Certainly some adjustments will have to be made but #7 and #8 seem to do pretty well on the high line without crippling the freight service.  Generally, the train times for the passenger zippers are know well in advance and they pass through the area in short order. 

[Anonymous]

Mark, it's been years since the EB was pulled by F7's. 

Of course, Dave.  But the official defiinition of "engine" remains about the same, which was my point.

????

Two locomotives = two engines.  Nomenclatured semantics?

Thank you for acknowledging that the EB is a money loser, probably due to the fact that it travel's through sparsely populated territory.  Who knows, if the EB actually passed through Montana's more populous cities, it might come close to breaking even!

Great example of how you take things out of context.  Yup, the Empire Builder loses money, as does every other non-tourist passenger train in the country.  But except for Auto Train, which serves almost an exclusive tourist market with only two stations (Lorton and Sanford), the Empire Builder loses less money than any other long distance Amtrak train when judged in the context of the figures I provided in the previous post.  Since the Empire Builder passes through the territory with the sparsest population, but loses the least amount of money, it is therefore illogical to assume that passing through more populous cities would mean the train would lose less money.  If your assertion were true, ALL the other long distance trains would lose less money than the Empire Builder, but they don't.

Wrong.  The EB loses less money because of the lack of passenger modal competition.  All other LD's go through more populous territory with state of the art airlline service - Salt Lake City, Denver, etc.

You are suggesting ridership would go down if EB was routed through more populous territory.  I am suggesting EB ridership would increase if rerouted through more populous territory.  Logic backs my ascertion, emotion backs yours.

No, Dave.  Logic and ridership statistics back mine.  I don't know what backs yours. 

So what's so logical about low population = better ridership?  It's an absurd, illogical acertion.  As I stated above, your precious EB gets riders due to lack of competition, not because of lack of population.  If the latter is the cause of the former, so what?

Last time I looked, Great Falls is closer to Helena than to Shelby or Havre.  Rerouting via MRL would make it more convient for GF folks as well as those from Butte, Bozeman, Helena, et al.  As for Lethbridgians, hey it's bad enough we subsidize Americans using Amtrak, we don't need to subsidize Canadians as well.

The thing that amazes me, Dave, is that not only do you ignore facts, you seem to have limited access to reference materials.  Great Falls is closer to Helena than Shelby?  91 miles to Helena, and 86 to Shelby (source: 2007 Rand McNally Road Atlas).  Not only is 86 less than 91, but the drive takes longer because of speed restrictions in Wolf Creek Canyon (55 instead of 75).  The drive from Great Falls to Shelby is also less likely to be affected by the weather, which can get nasty in the mountains between Cascade and Helena.  Just shows your limited knowledge of Montana.  As for people from Lethbridge riding Amtrak, as long as they pay the fare, who cares? Their number is not great, put the point is simply that more of them ride it than your earlier contention that most of the riders are from Southern Montana, which is not the case.

My knowledge of Montana is fine, despite the typo.  Of course, Havre was on the mind when I wrote it, Shelby an afterthought, neither of which degrades the main point - GF isn't served by Amtrak, and having to choose between going north or south to access it is basically a draw - roughly the same driving time to Shelby or Helena for a westbound boarding, and about a half hour less to Helena than to Havre for an eastbound boarding.  GF citizens will not cry if the EB is shifted to the MRL line, as their ridership opportunities are not diminished one whit.  Rerouting the EB to the MRL is a win/win for GF residents.  It's a win/win for Lewistown residents.  It's a win/win for Helena, Missoula, Bozeman, Billings, Butte, Miles City, Yellowstone NP tourists.  The only losers are the scattered High Liners.

And who cares if US taxpayers such as I are subsidizing Canadians to use Amtrak?  Get a clue.

You're saying Amtrak ridership at Flagstaff should be higher than that at Whitefish due to the higher population base, but it's not which *proves* something.  Yet you acknowledge that Arizona has better flight connections than Montana cities, so doesn't that explain Amtrak's relatively low ridership numbers in Flagstaff?

Absolutely not.  Again, you're just fishing.  Southern Montana has excellent air service, clearly on par with that of Phoenix, considering the relative populations. 

"Southern Montana has air service on par with that of Phoenix"?!  An absurd statement to say the least given the air fares Michael posted.  And that brings me to the main point of thi