Empire Builder moved to a more southerly route?

[VerMontanan]

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.

Actually, the manned helpers on each loaded coal train operate as far east as Fryburg after climbing out of the valley of the Little Missouri River.  But the overall point is correct.  The line is very slow.  The lone intermodal train in that area (operating from Chicago to Laurel, Montana) used to operate on this route (now it runs via Willmar and Aberdeen).  One time, there was a derailment in the vicinity of Bismarck and it detoured from Casselton to Glendive via Minot and Snowden.  In spite of the longer mileage and that the track was good for only 25 MPH from Snowden to Glendive, the train made up 35 minutes over scheduled running time due to the fact that the route via Minot is flatter, straighter, and has faster track.

The Milwaukee line east of Terry would be an option, but is largely 40 MPH track.

[VerMontanan]

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."

 

[VerMontanan]

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.

 

 

Thanks to Michael for acknowledging (unlike in years past) that the Empire Builder really goes to Portland.   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.    Today's Empire Builder, by the way, has the distinction of being the only long distance train that still operates on a schedule close to that of its pre-Amtrak days...all the other trains are much slower.   As for seeing "The Country", it should be pointed out that Seattle is generally considered to be in the Pacific Northwest by most people.  The reason that the Empire Builder, at least in Washington State, was/is the far more scenic route was that, unlike the Milwaukee Road and Northern Pacific routes, passengers did get treated to seeing the Pacific Ocean (actually inlets Possession and Puget Sounds) between Everett and Seattle.  The current Empire Builder route treats passengers to a dramatic drop into the Columbia River, and even parallels it for awhile past Rock Island Dam.  Then it travels through orchards en route to Leavenworth (soon to be a stop for the Empire Builder).  West of Skykomish, the train is always close to the Skykomish and Snohomish Rivers and their appropriate scenic views, especially Sunset Falls.  The run between Everett and Seattle is one of the most scenic anywhere, and nearing Seattle, passengers are treated to viewing Shilshole Bay Marina, the Chittenden locks leading to Lake Union, and the Seattle waterfront.  Seattle boast more boats per capita than anywhere in the United States, and you can see why from the Empire Builder.  And the symbol of the city of Seattle....the Space Needle?  Clearly visible from today's Empire Builder.  The NP route across Eastern Washington included a lot of desert scenery (corresponding to its longer route).  The Yakima River Canyon is scenic, but on the west side of the mountains once Lester is achieved, it's basically a tunnel of trees (in the Tacoma watershed) to the Kansaskat area where the train enters suburbia for the remainder of the trip to Seattle, and passengers never see any salt water.  The Milwaukee passenger train route across Washington State (which relied on operating over Union Pacific and Great Northern subsidiary Pacific Coast to make the trip) not only missed the salt water views (and the Space Needle, even if Milwaukee passenger trains would have continued beyond 1961, as the Space Needle was still being built at the time), but also a lot of orchards so visible along the ex-GN and ex-NP routes that so many associate with Washington State.  If you were looking for the essence of Washington State, a trip on the UP-MILW-PC(GN) was not the best representation.   Outside Washington State, Idaho, and Western Montana, it was another story.  Clearly across Central and Eastern Montana, the MILW and Northern Pacific were more scenic.  Of course, Great Northern compensated by having a major national park right on its main line which the competition didn't.  Also, in this case, lack of scenery meant lack of grade, so while the MILW and NP were slugging their way up grades well in excess of one percent across Central Montana, GN didn't encounter this until its crossing of the Continental Divide (and even then, westbound, it was dramatically less than NP or MILW).  So, maybe that's why in addition to the lone Chicago-Pacific Northwest passenger train traversing its current route, most of the freight goes that way, too.

[VerMontanan]

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.

The ridership at East Glacier "small spuds"?  The station is only open 5 months of the year, and ridership is significantly greater than Granby, Colorado for Rocky Mountain National Park or Williams Jct., AZ for Grand Canyon (where the trains stop all year).   As for East Glacier being the station for "Rocky Mountain Front" communities?  Not only not true, but what would they be?  Other than Browning, probably none, and Browning (where the train stops the 7 months of the year when NOT stopping at East Glacier) does not enjoy similar strong ridership.  Cardston, Alberta maybe?  You can drive to Cut Bank faster than via twisty US 89 and Montana 49.  Anyplace else like Choteau, Conrad, and Great Falls use the stop at Shelby which is easiest to access.

[Anonymous]

I think we have sufficient information to conclude that the EB would be better off on the NP line and probaby would be were it not for stagnant tradition.

In that same vein, there is now little reason to continue the split in Spokane, since the Washington Legislature has allocated funds for a fifth (!) Amtrak Cascades trainset between Seattle and Portland.....

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/tch/local/story/8811956p-8712732c.html

 

[diningcar]

With the posts at this site and others haven't we been sufficiently informed that there is no foreseeable (in the next ten-fifteen years) going to be an AMTRAK train on the former NP line.

Let's move on to what may be possible.

[Anonymous]

 So until more equipment shows up and track speeds get raised, it is moot.

 I agree on the equipment end, there's not enough.  The track is ready for Amtrak or can be in a relatively short time.  I'm not sure about BNSF through Bismarck (lots of coal trains that tend to do damage to good track is a short period of time), but MRL is pretty much ready now, they just need to post the speed limits and put some superelevation back into the curves.

When I spent two weeks last year up along the Clark Fork River and MRL, I saw train after train of BNSF double stacks. 

Question:  Which line are these BNSF double stacks using east of Billings? 

Since we've *established* that any Amtrak train must follow a line that hosts intermodals, why can't we just send this new train along that line?

On my most recent trip to Malta, two people got off and two got on.  The two that got on lived in the area and were heading for Vancouver, WA.

Gosh, if this keeps up they'll have to order a whole new trainset just to keep up with demand!

[Anonymous]

 So until more equipment shows up and track speeds get raised, it is moot.

 I agree on the equipment end, there's not enough.  The track is ready for Amtrak or can be in a relatively short time.  I'm not sure about BNSF through Bismarck (lots of coal trains that tend to do damage to good track is a short period of time), but MRL is pretty much ready now, they just need to post the speed limits and put some superelevation back into the curves.

 

As was postulated earlier, most of the boardings along the High Line are probably coming from the I-90/I-94 corridor, e.g. the proposed southern line.

Most of the boardings are not coming from I-90/I-94 corridor.  I have made that drive on several occasions, both to ride the train and to drop/pick someone up.  Not too many other peolpe made the 200+ mile trip from Billings to either Malta (Malta had a ticket agent at one point) or Havre.  On my most recent trip to Malta, two people got off and two got on.  The two that got on lived in the area and were heading for Vancouver, WA.

[Anonymous]

 

The Empire Builder should be left as is.

Why?

[Modelcar]

Dakguy:

You might check what time frame that satellite imagery was produced.....Might have been as long ago as a decade ago....

[Dakguy201]

I keep seeing references to "all" of the cars at Beech Grove that can't be repaired for lack of funds.  Yet I have seen satellite photos of that facility, and there did not appear to be a large number of cars on hand, so I assumed I was just seeing cars in for minor repairs, upgrades and refurbishment.  There appeared to be less than 25 cars there in total, but I obviously am not including any in the buildings.

Was I just seeing a portion of the facility?  Does anyone know just how many cars are not being repaired due to lack of funding? 

[kenneo]

 As was postulated earlier, most of the boardings along the High Line are probably coming from the I-90/I-94 corridor, e.g. the proposed southern line.  

Nonsense Dave. The Empire Builder should be left as is.

If Montana wants a second train, then they should pay for it. That is how Amtrak works now under W. I'll take a guess that the State's Senate is dominated by the GOP, never a freind to passenger trains.

Dale

Washington is rather big on passenger service (they own all but one or two of the Cascades sets and Oregon owns the others) so perhaps Washington (and maybe Oregon) could get together and purchase a diner, several coaches, and sleepers from the wreck-repair at Beach Grove, get (as in pay) AMTK to repair them or one of the reputable passenger car rebuild facilities.  Convert the diner to a diner-club-lounge.  The diner operates on #'s 27 and 28.  Dinner and lounge East, Breakfast West.  One set of coaches/sleepers goes to Seattle and one set to Portland.  Park for occupancy at Spokane.  "Rental" to the States, revenue to AMTK.

If the service is a bust, there are some cars ready to be sold back to AMTK, or leased back to them, since equipment are in such short supply.

[nanaimo73]

 As was postulated earlier, most of the boardings along the High Line are probably coming from the I-90/I-94 corridor, e.g. the proposed southern line.  

Nonsense Dave. The Empire Builder should be left as is.

If Montana wants a second train, then they should pay for it. That is how Amtrak works now under W. I'll take a guess that the State's Senate is dominated by the GOP, never a freind to passenger trains.

[spokyone]

 

Let's call this train The North Coast Limited, reviving the old NP name.  This train would depart Chicago some three hours ahead of the Empire Builder, not on the CP, but BNSF toward Savanna, IL.  It would follow the river up to La Crosse, WI stopping at Dubuque, IL and Praire du Chien, WI.  At La Crosse, it would switch to the CP for the run to St Paul.  This would pick up Winona and Red Wing (both Builder stops but at an earlier time).

  I love this idea.

[Anonymous]

They won't move the Builder because it would be dumb. The Builder has the highest ridership of any long distance train in the country and most of that ridership is due to the Highline. We carry more passengers to Minot, ND and Whitefish, MT than from Chicago to Seattle. I know this because I am a conductor out of Saint Cloud, MN. The track is too slow on the southern route, there is too much traffic on the southern route and there is not enough equipment to start one right now. So until more equipment shows up and track speeds get raised, it is moot.

As was postulated earlier, most of the boardings along the High Line are probably coming from the I-90/I-94 corridor, e.g. the proposed southern line.  If that holds true, then it would be dumb not to move the train closer to where the actual boarders reside.  That is, unless we can finally admit that Amtrak is nothing but a glorified welfare program, wherein any resemblence of financial accountability is a moot point.

[sklimpel]

They won't move the Builder because it would be dumb. The Builder has the highest ridership of any long distance train in the country and most of that ridership is due to the Highline. We carry more passengers to Minot, ND and Whitefish, MT than from Chicago to Seattle. I know this because I am a conductor out of Saint Cloud, MN. The track is too slow on the southern route, there is too much traffic on the southern route and there is not enough equipment to start one right now. So until more equipment shows up and track speeds get raised, it is moot.

[no27]

On Edit: After reading all the posts regrading have train service on the old NP line I've decided to remove my post. It looks like there aren't enough vocal people wanting train service and the politicians don't want to expend $$$ to do anything. Typical!

JMHO

[kenneo]

Scott 

Welcome to the Forums!

Your suggestion about using the Mainstreeter schedule is quite close to what I suggested several posts above, but I postulated turning South at the Twin Cities to St. Louis instead of continuing on to Chicago.  Missoula-Portland already supports jet service on Horizon Air (Alaska Air Group), so there is a market.  And there are several Spokane-Portland flights each day.

Dave

They would keep the split at Spokane since that is already a crew change point.  Pasco split would permit the Portland crew to do a double-back, therefor using only one crew.  Spokane splits require three crews for even one run as it is now.  Two runs would not require any additional crews between Portland and Spokane.  I also am of the opinion that Portland-Missoula might be able to be operated by a single crew each direction plus the layover crew at Missoula - no new crews needed. 

Operating from Chicago as suggested here and making a swap at Spokane (shades of the NP-GN days!!) works as long as someone(s) is willing to pony up.  Maintain two sets of cars parked for occupancy at Spokane (set out by the Eastbounds and to be picked up by the Westbounds).

A restoration of Denver service (with or without an extension to St. Louis and/or Houston) is a good suggestion, but I don't think the traffic is there to support the service North of Cheyenne and without a viable service to connect to at its North end, I can't see any service on this route.

[Anonymous]

The tracks from Glendive up to Williston are still in place, but are now owned by a private raiload, not BNSF.  Not to mention, most of the rail was, at least the last time I saw it, 80, 85, 90, and 100 # jointed rail with a 25mph speed limit on it.

First and foremost, the Empire Builder will not come off the Hi-Line.  Won't happen.  However, the Builder would most likely not be affected by a train on the ex-NP.  And has anyone considered the overnight possibilities for Billings to the Twin Cities as well as Billings to Spokane?  Here's a suggestion that could work for a train on the southern route that would have connections with the Builder at Spokane. 

Let's call this train The North Coast Limited, reviving the old NP name.  This train would depart Chicago some three hours ahead of the Empire Builder, not on the CP, but BNSF toward Savanna, IL.  It would follow the river up to La Crosse, WI stopping at Dubuque, IL and Praire du Chien, WI.  At La Crosse, it would switch to the CP for the run to St Paul.  This would pick up Winona and Red Wing (both Builder stops but at an earlier time). 

The train would continue to follow the Builder route (on BNSF) until Fargo where it would set out across ND toward Bismarck.  The Empire Builder is some three hours behind the NCL making its run from Minneapolis to Fargo.  When the NCL crosses into Montana and stops at Glendive, the Builder is in Minot.  When the NCL reaches Billings (now on MRL), the Builder is in Malta, MT (east of Havre).  The NCL reaches Missoula, the Builder will be desending the west side Marias Pass. And when the NCL reaches Sandpoint Jct., the Builder will be about 20 to 30 minutes behind it at Bonners Ferry, ID.  The two trains would swap Seattle and Portland bound cars at Spokane, with the NCL continuing on to Portland via the old SP&S and the Builder to Seattle via Stevens Pass, not Stampede.

Stampede Pass has no signal system on it and is all Track Warrant Control, not an ideal place for a passenger train (59 mph restriction).  MRL has FRA class 4 track, good for 79 mph passenger trains.  The limiting factor is indeed the curves, but for speed, not clearance (If a Superliner will go around a 14 and one half degree curve coming into the station at Milwaukee, it'll go around curves on MRL).  And the grade crossing activators will have to be moved to account for the 79 mph speed limit (FRA requires at least 20 seconds warning at a crossing where protective signals are used).  And east of Billings sees maybe 20 to 25 trains a day, no more than MRL sees daily.

There are two big obstacles facing a potential NCL/Hiawatha  1)Funding from Congress and the participating states, 2) Equipment.  No Superliners are available to make the train work (the NCL would have the same consist makeup as the Empire Builder, which requires 11 Superliners). But without funding, which if MT senate said no, then we'll wait till next year, this whole point would be dead.

[aricat]

   It might be time to think about restoring the North Coast Hiawatha. It could be operated Portland to Chicago using the old North Coast Limited route. The Empire Builder would operate only from Seattle. This would mean better service for Spokane, southern Montana, Bismarck, Fargo and Minneapolis-St Paul. Amtrak Cascades could provide connections to each train from Portand or Seattle. The Mainstreeter schedule of 1964 might be a good one to use for this new route.

[Anonymous]

Kenneo,

Here's the rub:  If the EB is rerouted onto the Stampede Pass line like BNSF wants to do, then several things happen that change the entire route structure of the EB with or without that southern Montana reroute/new service....

1. Assuming a continuation of the Portland split, a Stampede Pass reroute would move the site of the split to Pasco.
2. Since the Stampede Pass reroute would add 3 or 4 hours to the shedule, for the EB to continue to arrive at Seattle at 7-ish am but continue to leave Seattle at dinertime means it would pass through Spokane at 8 or 9 at night.  Now we're talking potentially increased (read:  more convenient) boardings at Spokane.
3. Which also means the arrivals at Whitefish move to the early afternoon.  Does that then detract from the "overnight" experience for Seattle bound passengers"
4. Thus if we get a new train from Spokane to Missoula/Billings/on east, does that mean it would be scheduled to meet the EB in Spokane, or will it be scheduled for the primary convenience of the Montana clients?

Montana won't stand still for the Builder to leave the High Line.  I can understand why the BN wants to move the Builder to the NP, but I also believe that it would be a service disaster and would endanger the Empire Builder's Seattle traffic.

That does seem to be the media consensus.....

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/OPINION01/704120304/1014/OPINION

Well, then push will eventually come to shove, because I just can't see Montana being willing to support two trains......

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/04/14/news/state/53-train.txt

(Oops, sorry Spokyone.  Didn't see you had the same link!)

#1  Which is where the NP took its pool cars from the SPS.  The GN cars went to Spokane.

Well, maybe the State of WA will build that Ellensburg-Lind Cutoff, thus moving the split to Ritzville!

#2  Any schedule change would be West of Spokane.  Altering the Builders time slot East of Spokane would require altering all of the freight traffice slots on the Builders route on all of the railroads involved.  What a nightmare!  It would be better to originate a Spokane-Seattle overnight train about 9 PM or so $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  Require some really sharp marketing and service need studies and promotions - bur would eliminate any need for parking Seattle cars for occupancy.

So you're suggesting that a Stampede Pass reroute would force the departure and arrival times to change in Seattle/Portland, rather than allow the changes along the whole route via a dominoe effect?

#3  Won't be an issue.  See #2

#4  As long as any new service operates Helena and West, the cluster swap of cars would be at Spokane.  A much better solution, but one that won't fly at present, would be to operate the new service from Williston, ND, via Sidney Livingston, Helena, Missoula, Spokane, Seattle/Portland.

This "Yellowstone Run" taking cars from the Builder at Williston in the same manner as now occurrs at Spokane.  The Builder would still carry a Portland section which it would leave at Spokane or Pasco for the "Yellowstone Run" to take to Portland.  A separate "Yellowstone Run" Seattle section would operate Pasco to Seattle.  

You would still want to park cars for occupancy at Spokane for both trains East and West (at least 4 coaches and 4 sleepers).  You would not be able to make a swap at Spokane or Pasco because of the difference in running times is too great.  The new "Yellowstone Run" would be ahead of the Builder going East and behind it going West by several hours. 

I'm still not sure if that Williston to Glendive trackage is still there.  Anyone know?

It was pointed out at the Helena meeting that the Montana Congressional delegation proposed a Spokane to Denver train back in 2000.  Wow!  How would that train get by the PRB congestion?  Maybe Laurel to Casper via the Wind River Canyon?

[spokyone]

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I picked this up from AP
Mont. Senate rejects funding for passenger train study

(The Associated Press circulated the following story on April 15.)

GREAT FALLS, Mont. - A study on the feasibility of restoring passenger train service in southern Montana is in jeopardy, after the Senate rejected several funding attempts Friday.

Money for the study wasn't included in the state budget, and senators voted against two amendments to set aside $100,000 and $150,000 for it.

[conrailman]

Empire Builder should stay on the Same Route and if Amtrak wants a New Train put it on on different route.

[kenneo]

Kenneo,

Here's the rub:  If the EB is rerouted onto the Stampede Pass line like BNSF wants to do, then several things happen that change the entire route structure of the EB with or without that southern Montana reroute/new service....

1. Assuming a continuation of the Portland split, a Stampede Pass reroute would move the site of the split to Pasco.
2. Since the Stampede Pass reroute would add 3 or 4 hours to the shedule, for the EB to continue to arrive at Seattle at 7-ish am but continue to leave Seattle at dinertime means it would pass through Spokane at 8 or 9 at night.  Now we're talking potentially increased (read:  more convenient) boardings at Spokane.
3. Which also means the arrivals at Whitefish move to the early afternoon.  Does that then detract from the "overnight" experience for Seattle bound passengers"
4. Thus if we get a new train from Spokane to Missoula/Billings/on east, does that mean it would be scheduled to meet the EB in Spokane, or will it be scheduled for the primary convenience of the Montana clients?

Montana won't stand still for the Builder to leave the High Line.  I can understand why the BN wants to move the Builder to the NP, but I also believe that it would be a service disaster and would endanger the Empire Builder's Seattle traffic.

#1  Which is where the NP took its pool cars from the SPS.  The GN cars went to Spokane.

#2  Any schedule change would be West of Spokane.  Altering the Builders time slot East of Spokane would require altering all of the freight traffice slots on the Builders route on all of the railroads involved.  What a nightmare!  It would be better to originate a Spokane-Seattle overnight train about 9 PM or so $$$$$$$$$$$$$$.  Require some really sharp marketing and service need studies and promotions - bur would eliminate any need for parking Seattle cars for occupancy.

#3  Won't be an issue.  See #2

#4  As long as any new service operates Helena and West, the cluster swap of cars would be at Spokane.  A much better solution, but one that won't fly at present, would be to operate the new service from Williston, ND, via Sidney Livingston, Helena, Missoula, Spokane, Seattle/Portland.

This "Yellowstone Run" taking cars from the Builder at Williston in the same manner as now occurrs at Spokane.  The Builder would still carry a Portland section which it would leave at Spokane or Pasco for the "Yellowstone Run" to take to Portland.  A separate "Yellowstone Run" Seattle section would operate Pasco to Seattle.  

You would still want to park cars for occupancy at Spokane for both trains East and West (at least 4 coaches and 4 sleepers).  You would not be able to make a swap at Spokane or Pasco because of the difference in running times is too great.  The new "Yellowstone Run" would be ahead of the Builder going East and behind it going West by several hours. 

[Anonymous]

Kenneo,

Here's the rub:  If the EB is rerouted onto the Stampede Pass line like BNSF wants to do, then several things happen that change the entire route structure of the EB with or without that southern Montana reroute/new service....

1. Assuming a continuation of the Portland split, a Stampede Pass reroute would move the site of the split to Pasco.
2. Since the Stampede Pass reroute would add 3 or 4 hours to the shedule, for the EB to continue to arrive at Seattle at 7-ish am but continue to leave Seattle at dinertime means it would pass through Spokane at 8 or 9 at night.  Now we're talking potentially increased (read:  more convenient) boardings at Spokane.
3. Which also means the arrivals at Whitefish move to the early afternoon.  Does that then detract from the "overnight" experience for Seattle bound passengers"
4. Thus if we get a new train from Spokane to Missoula/Billings/on east, does that mean it would be scheduled to meet the EB in Spokane, or will it be scheduled for the primary convenience of the Montana clients?

[kenneo]

In a past Post on this subject, I mentioned ---

"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."

and Dave (futuremodel) mentioned ---

"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."

Dave -- it is entirely possible to to have your cake and eat it, too.  The fly in this ointment is #1 Where is the equipment going to come from and #2 Who is going to pay for this?

#2's answer is, at least, Washington, possibly Oregon, and Montana.  Perhaps, if the States can convince BNSF to cooperate, "sell" overnight ground express space to UPS, FedEx, and DANSAS, among others, for service to and from Missoula.

#1's answer is get some of those wreck damaged cars fixed.  Some of the equipment could come off of the current Builder.

Equipment needed in addition to what is now in use - 6 coaches, 6 sleepers and a diner.  If the express option can be included, at least 4 baggage cars (NOT those Materials Handling Cars the rest of us would call box cars - you'll need at least one TBM to work the cars since they would need to operate like checked baggage is now).

"New Service" needed - extend #'s 27 and 28 byond Spokane to Missoula.

3 of the coaches and 3 of the sleepers would park for occupancy at Spokane.  1 each coach and sleeper would go to Seattle, one set to Portland, and one set to Chicago.  The other 3 sets would originate at Missoula.  One set would go to Chicago, one to Seattle and one to Portland.  The Chicago cars probably could come off the Builder since they will be added back into that train at Spokane, so instead of operating Seattle-Spokane-Chicago, they would operate Missoula-Spokane-Chicago.

MASSIVE swap of equipment at Spokane.  All four trains would need to meet in Spokane like now. 

Advantages:  Eliminates drive between Whitefish and the Clark Fork area (Missoula).   Provides same level of service that currently exists for Clark Fork area.  Does not cannablize current traffic from Builder.  Privides excellent overnight service between Missoula and Seattle and Portland and between Spokane and Seattle and Portland without adding new schedules except for the Spokane-Billings.

Disadvantages:  Equipment (where, oh where, have my little cars gone?  where, oh where can they be?  with their engines cut off and their passengers gone, where, oh where, can they be?)  Money.

Just a note to Dave (and anyone else, for that matter) should he not catch on to what is happening at Spokane.  Those boarding now at Whitefish from the Clark Fork area would get on at Missoula instead.  The Chicago folks would get to Whitefish at the same time (but on the train) as they would have had they driven up from Missoula.  The Seattle and Portland folks would get to Portland and Seattle at the same time they would have had they driven up from Missoula.  Spokane would get what would amount to brand new service to the West.  I would expect that the Spokane traffic would increase rather quickly requiring added cars to park for occupancy at Spokane.

If this suggestion would be the success that I am convinced it would be, I think you would quickly see #'s 27 and 28 extended East to at least Helena, perhaps Great Falls and Shelby and/or byond Helena down the Yellowstone - perhaps all the way East to Williston.  Your show stoppers byond Missoula would be equipment and between Helena and Shelby, and between Glendive and Williston, track rehab.

 

 

 

[kenneo]

What happened to the cars used by the Montana Daylight, the last passenger service on MRL ?

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. 

The baggage car is in Linton, OR, on the P&W - very very well "tagged".

[kenneo]

 Quote #2

"Some issues need to be resolved, Green said. For example, train tracks between Missoula and Spokane feature at least 22 curves that are considered too sharp for passenger trains."

What in the blazes is he talking about?  BNSF runs autoracks and Boeing plane bodies through this line all the time.  Is he refering to Evaro Hill?  Is he harking back to the days of reverberations through Lookout Pass and St. Paul Pass?

The NP route between Butte and Sandpoint is SLOW for a passenger train.  A lot of 25 - 35 MPH track (curve limit).  Mr. Green mentioned "22 curves", so perhaps he was referring to these curve-limit speed restrictions? 

He probably means there are 22 curves that passenger trains can't handle at high speed (79 mph ?).

[trainboyH16-44]

If that's what he meant, I think I have to say "Boo-hoo!". Since when did ANY route in the west NOT have a fair number of slower than 79MPH curves? Is he wanting a new NEC going through the mountains or something?

[nanaimo73]

 Quote #2

"Some issues need to be resolved, Green said. For example, train tracks between Missoula and Spokane feature at least 22 curves that are considered too sharp for passenger trains."

What in the blazes is he talking about?  BNSF runs autoracks and Boeing plane bodies through this line all the time.  Is he refering to Evaro Hill?  Is he harking back to the days of reverberations through Lookout Pass and St. Paul Pass?

He probably means there are 22 curves that passenger trains can't handle at high speed (79 mph ?).