arbfbe wrote:The math looks pretty good when you compare a single ticket to a lone rider. Now it all starts to fall apart when you put multiple riders in the same automobile compared to the cost of a like number of AMTK fares. During a multi day trip the cost of motels vs sleeping in the seat again move the balance towards the train. If you want a bed on the train the auto again may be "cheaper". It all depends upon how you want to factor in the options.
Using $89 hotel rooms, $6 per meal per diem, current Amtrak coach fares and roomette costs and Jay Eaton's gas prices, assuming the car trip requires four nights motel stay ...
By car:
1 occupant $738 per person
2 occupants $405
3 occupants $294
Amtrak
1 person coach $219.00 per person
2 persons coach $438.00
1 person roomette $740.00
2 persons, roomette $370 per person
Now, add in the extra time taken by car as a cost, plus overhead and depreciation on the car ...
I think Amtrak is truly missing the ad campaign for the Empire Builder ...
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.Well, just as long as you're not buying beer with your food stamps.......... After getting this thread de-trolled and back on track, why would you want to start a petty, little thing like this?
futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.Well, just as long as you're not buying beer with your food stamps..........
jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.
futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.
The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.
Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.
Well, just as long as you're not buying beer with your food stamps..........
Lighten up, Murph. Satire is never petty!
What we've established is that Amtrak is in the same catagory as welfare and food stamps.
Social Security, as bad as it is fiduciarily speaking, is at least pay-as-you-go. So why not Amtrak?
futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.Well, just as long as you're not buying beer with your food stamps.......... After getting this thread de-trolled and back on track, why would you want to start a petty, little thing like this?Lighten up, Murph. Satire is never petty!What we've established is that Amtrak is in the same catagory as welfare and food stamps.Social Security, as bad as it is fiduciarily speaking, is at least pay-as-you-go. So why not Amtrak?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: Murphy Siding wrote: futuremodal wrote: jeaton wrote: futuremodal wrote: The thought of subsidizing folks like Mark Meyer and Jay Eaton is irksome to say the least.Like I need another reason to ride Amtrak. However, I'll remember to keep you posted of my travel plans.Well, just as long as you're not buying beer with your food stamps.......... After getting this thread de-trolled and back on track, why would you want to start a petty, little thing like this?Lighten up, Murph. Satire is never petty!What we've established is that Amtrak is in the same catagory as welfare and food stamps.Social Security, as bad as it is fiduciarily speaking, is at least pay-as-you-go. So why not Amtrak?It looked fairly personal to me.
MichaelSol wrote: arbfbe wrote:The math looks pretty good when you compare a single ticket to a lone rider. Now it all starts to fall apart when you put multiple riders in the same automobile compared to the cost of a like number of AMTK fares. During a multi day trip the cost of motels vs sleeping in the seat again move the balance towards the train. If you want a bed on the train the auto again may be "cheaper". It all depends upon how you want to factor in the options.Using $89 hotel rooms, $6 per meal per diem, current Amtrak coach fares and roomette costs and Jay Eaton's gas prices, assuming the car trip requires four nights motel stay ...By car:1 occupant $738 per person2 occupants $4053 occupants $294Amtrak1 person coach $219.00 per person2 persons coach $438.001 person roomette $740.002 persons, roomette $370 per personNow, add in the extra time taken by car as a cost, plus overhead and depreciation on the car ...I think Amtrak is truly missing the ad campaign for the Empire Builder ...
Ignoring the intangible benefits of driving cross country (side trips on a whim, more flexible intineries, etc.), one more apt comparison is the roomette vs motel. Even the low budget motels like Motel 6 are roomier and more user friendly than the best Amtrak can offer. Figure more like $45 a night for the OTR traveller on the cheap. That cuts the four night budget by $180, and brings the auto vs Amtrak comparison to...
1 occupant $558 per person
By Amtrak:
It still seems to me that passenger rail in general is between a rock and a hard place in these long distance corridors - Too slow to compete with air travel, too inflexible to compete with the OTR experience, and by necessity more expensive than either even with the taxpayer subsidies. The chart I reference in June TRAINS shows that the highest ridership is between Western Montana/Puget Sound and Chicago/Twin Cities, e.g. the 24 hour/overnight experience. That's where the prospect of a self sufficient passenger rail operation would succeed, not in the long sparse yonders which have no real visual appeal for the more leisurely tourists. Those few who claim dependence on Amtrak for subsistence travel are simply getting special welfare treatment not afforded to those small burgs with no passenger rail service.
Is there really enough of a market to justify the three day LD trains?
conrailman wrote:How Many People Live in Montana?
Less than a million. Not enough to pay for the CTC over Evaro, and the 3 or so required sidings. Therefore, Amtrak is not going to run on the southern route.
futuremodal wrote: The chart I reference in June TRAINS shows that the highest ridership is between Western Montana/Puget Sound and Chicago/Twin Cities, e.g. the 24 hour/overnight experience. That's where the prospect of a self sufficient passenger rail operation would succeed, not in the long sparse yonders which have no real visual appeal for the more leisurely tourists. Those few who claim dependence on Amtrak for subsistence travel are simply getting special welfare treatment not afforded to those small burgs with no passenger rail service.
Well, I do think the Trains chart finally puts to rest the odd argument that the Montana "Hi-Line" provided some important rationale for long distance passenger train service. It was baloney when it was first argued on the Milw list, and it was baloney here when it was argued that East Glacier "wasn't small potatos" compared to the traffic from Whitefish west. Perhaps an independent verification from a published source will put some of these bizarre propositions to rest once and for all.
As with my experience and observations for Whtiefish west, and my conversations with those who actually rode the full "Builder" route, people just don't go in large numbers for long haul passenger service. Nothing has changed from the 1950s. The numbers still don't justify it. But clearly, the Empire Builder serves several distinct niches which, taken together, support the operation of a long distance train; in large part apparently operating as a Pacific Northwest "Night Train" and, as well, replacing the last "night train" on the East end, the Milwaukee's "Pioneer Limited," with an "evening train" that permits a late evening arrival into St. Paul. From that perspective, it is the timing of the train in its territory, not the train itself, that makes it relatively successful overall in the modern era.
If the data were available, it would be an interesting exercise to see if the following were true: that the Empire Builder is a profitable train between Chicago and St. Paul, and between Whitefish and Seattle/Portland, but loses its profitability on the "big empty" between the Twin Cities and Whitefish?
In that case, would it make more economic sense to have a West Empire Builder -- Billings to Spokane and Whitefish to Spokane, then Spokane to Portland and Spokane to Seattle? And a similar service on the east end, and simply abandon the unprofitable portion in between?
snagletooth wrote: MichaelSol wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely. Of course, MRL wouldn't be studying rail passenger service to a little town of 625. Perhaps that wasn't obvious. What the corridor describes, however, is a linear belt of about 45,000 people who funnel onto one (mostly) two lane highway for commuting between Missoula and Hamilton, primarily, Darby happens to be a little further down the track and is the physical end of the rail route. These are well-educated people by and large -- and some pretty wealthy ones as well. A variety of car pools and busses, privately organized, serve part of the commuting public, and a drive down the highway on a weekday will show informal parking lots full of cars all along the route -- ironically typically on MRL property at road crossings. So, people are already substantially "trained" to an urban transportation model -- the model just happens to be lacking a key component of urban transportation. Judging by that statement, sounds like what lower Montana needs is a commuter rail authuority centering on Missoula.
MichaelSol wrote: Dakguy201 wrote: I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely. Of course, MRL wouldn't be studying rail passenger service to a little town of 625. Perhaps that wasn't obvious. What the corridor describes, however, is a linear belt of about 45,000 people who funnel onto one (mostly) two lane highway for commuting between Missoula and Hamilton, primarily, Darby happens to be a little further down the track and is the physical end of the rail route. These are well-educated people by and large -- and some pretty wealthy ones as well. A variety of car pools and busses, privately organized, serve part of the commuting public, and a drive down the highway on a weekday will show informal parking lots full of cars all along the route -- ironically typically on MRL property at road crossings. So, people are already substantially "trained" to an urban transportation model -- the model just happens to be lacking a key component of urban transportation.
Dakguy201 wrote: I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely.
I had to get out a map to even find out where Darby and Polson were. I now know, and I also know out that they have populations of 625 and 3300. Yup, no doubt they should have train service also. A Roadrailer pickup each way twice a week should do very nicely.
Of course, MRL wouldn't be studying rail passenger service to a little town of 625. Perhaps that wasn't obvious. What the corridor describes, however, is a linear belt of about 45,000 people who funnel onto one (mostly) two lane highway for commuting between Missoula and Hamilton, primarily, Darby happens to be a little further down the track and is the physical end of the rail route. These are well-educated people by and large -- and some pretty wealthy ones as well. A variety of car pools and busses, privately organized, serve part of the commuting public, and a drive down the highway on a weekday will show informal parking lots full of cars all along the route -- ironically typically on MRL property at road crossings. So, people are already substantially "trained" to an urban transportation model -- the model just happens to be lacking a key component of urban transportation.
That commuter authority quickly runs into a few critical problems right at the start. Who is going to pay for it all? Trust me with this, the Bitterrooters are going to be vocal about not being dragged into any regional funding plan. They will be willing to let the Missoulians pay for all of it to their benefit but many have moved away from Missoula's 'metropolitan' area in order to pay lower property taxes. The folks in the Mission Valley to the north won't be signing petitions to form the RTD neither. Montana is proudly sales tax free, mostly, so trying to fund the district at the check out counter will probably be a non-starter for a number of very political reasons. Commonly one sales tax leads to another which leads to even more projects to fund using a consumer base. The Missoulians will be up in arms about supporting such an expensive system primarily for the benefit of others. It is really going to have to hurt throughout the five valleys before anyone gets to the point of developing a funding plan.
If someone were to bring a privately funded regional commuter business to the corridors today, the Missoula bus system could not likely handle the rubber tired portion of the system. You cannot just drop the commuters off the trains at 3 locations and let them just fend for themselves after that. So the existing bus system would require a major overhaul focused on train connections while maintaining existing service.
So this quickly becomes more than a $1.98 idea. Many folks may laud the proposal but few would be willing to pay for the implementation. The service would have to be all encompassing enough to be an attractive to actually get people out of their cars. Until Hwy 93 is bumper to bumper, stop and go traffic during the morning and afternoon commutes, it will also carry a time penalty. That day is yet to come and the 5th and 6th lanes have yet to be built. The first suggestion will be to buy the railroad ROW from MRL and build an expressway rather than fund the trains.
That's sad to here. One thing learned around Chicago, the more roads you build to ease congestion, the more congested highways you'll have.You're thoughts on Montanians train of though(pun intended) is alot like the HSP in CA. thread. Give them the obvous solution and they'll find ALL sorts of reason to turn it down for a bigger shovel to keep digging their own grave, so to speak. Stop Amtrak between the Twins and Spokane. Then hand them a bigger shovel with the money Amtrak just saved.
So it's alittle more than $1.98 solution, but nothing's free. Not even in Montana.
snagletooth wrote: So it's alittle more than $1.98 solution, but nothing's free. Not even in Montana.
A buck ninety eight is Montana slang for expensive. Times have changed and we may have to raise that to three bucks seventy five or something. With around 900,000 residents trying to fund the infrastructure in the state, nothing is cheap. Somehow adding people with the population growth of the last decade does not reduce the costs. You would think all those new people, nearly a quarter million of them would pick up their share of the costs but like everywhere else the services and infrastructure they require costs more than the tax revenues they bring in. Not to get too political but the $10 billion that goes to Iraq every month with absolutely no debate, would fund the Missoula Corridors Mass Transit sytem for decades to come. There is no way that amount of funding could be supplied by Congress or the state legislature would debate it to death. The Republicans would scream foul when noting the creation of yet another government bureaucracy in competition with free enterprise. Not that any private company would be interested in taking on such a money losing franchise anyway.
So Montana will limp along like it has done for generations. Things get done and most of it works in it's own fashion. My prognosis for increased mass transit in Montana is not optimistic. Even the existing bus systems have a hard time keeping what they have on the road. Investment in new rail operations is probably not going to happen in the next 20-30 years. Another passenger train on the south line has some chance depending upon how the next administration decides to treat AMTK generally.
arbfbe wrote:Even the existing bus systems have a hard time keeping what they have on the road. Investment in new rail operations is probably not going to happen in the next 20-30 years. Another passenger train on the south line has some chance depending upon how the next administration decides to treat AMTK generally.
Even the existing bus systems have a hard time keeping what they have on the road. Investment in new rail operations is probably not going to happen in the next 20-30 years. Another passenger train on the south line has some chance depending upon how the next administration decides to treat AMTK generally.
Might be able to drum up some support if you could get HOME STATE BOY Robbie Keneivel to Advertise for BEEFing up Amtrak in Montana. Folks there go for Icons, and Robbie is the only tangible Icon they have left that could do it!
The Troll Is Back Murph!
And before you go off half-cocked Murph, something you need to realize - Not only getting industrial support for another passenger service in the state, this also requires that you should get at least 2/3rds support [or is the 3/4ths] from the citizens in the area it would affect. This is something that DM&E has had the problem with in winning over public support for them running Higher speed trains thru Fairmont Nebraska, and Rochester Minnesota [the 2 towns that have been steadily DEAD SET AGAINST IT! Fairmont Caved in by default from pressure thru the State Legislature, and Rochester finally caved seeing the increase of annual tax revenue. Rochester is still giving the RR Problems for 2 things [maybe even more, but 2 things at least];
1.-The RR bisects the entire city and the city fathers, citizens, and the Maayo Clinic are against higher speed trains running thru the town. Most of the right-of-way passes thru residential neighborhoods that have enroached upon the right-of-way, and now they don't want to turn loose of what they have "Squatted" upon.
2.-DM&E sees the need for a new reinforced bridge to cross the river, the Rochester Historical society wants to save the old bridge for historical purposes - what a headache!
Now I'm not saying this will impact Amtrack in Montana [although you've tried to get me associated in this activity in the past by transliterating my analogies], but using this as an example Unless Amtrak and the State can get the 3/4ths citizenz support [I'm sure it's more like 3/4ths, instead of 2/3rds] for another Amtrak route in the state, they'll end up getting over one hurdle, and then [like DM&E] have to deal with other nit-picking hurdles!
This is something that DM&E has had the problem with in winning over public support for them running Higher speed trains thru Fairmont Nebraska, and Rochester Minnesota [the 2 towns that have been steadily DEAD SET AGAINST IT! Fairmont Caved in by default from pressure thru the State Legislature, and Rochester finally caved seeing the increase of annual tax revenue.
What does Fairmont, Nebraska have to do with DME ?
Isn't bail a wonderful thing ?
nanaimo73 wrote:This is something that DM&E has had the problem with in winning over public support for them running Higher speed trains thru Fairmont Nebraska, and Rochester Minnesota [the 2 towns that have been steadily DEAD SET AGAINST IT! Fairmont Caved in by default from pressure thru the State Legislature, and Rochester finally caved seeing the increase of annual tax revenue. What does Fairmont, Nebraska have to do with DME ?Isn't bail a wonderful thing ?
HEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRR WE GO!
nanaimo73 wrote: This is something that DM&E has had the problem with in winning over public support for them running Higher speed trains thru Fairmont Nebraska, and Rochester Minnesota [the 2 towns that have been steadily DEAD SET AGAINST IT! Fairmont Caved in by default from pressure thru the State Legislature, and Rochester finally caved seeing the increase of annual tax revenue. What does Fairmont, Nebraska have to do with DME ?Isn't bail a wonderful thing ?
Must......change......pants.......laughed......tooo....hard.........
solzrules wrote:Must......change......pants.......laughed......tooo....hard.........
The Texas Madman wrote: solzrules wrote: Must......change......pants.......laughed......tooo....hard.........Naaahhhhhh, just use yer finger!
solzrules wrote: Must......change......pants.......laughed......tooo....hard.........
Must.........kill............thread...........now............please.............Bergie.....
MichaelSol wrote:Well, I do think the Trains chart finally puts to rest the odd argument that the Montana "Hi-Line" provided some important rationale for long distance passenger train service. It was baloney when it was first argued on the Milw list, and it was baloney here when it was argued that East Glacier "wasn't small potatos" compared to the traffic from Whitefish west. Perhaps an independent verification from a published source will put some of these bizarre propositions to rest once and for all.
The chart isn't very clear, From the chart it looks like Minneapolis belongs to segment #2 (note city name in red) and as such 16 or less people who boarded on segment#1 got off there. More people who boarded on segment #1 got off on segment #3 or segment #4. It could have been a lot clearer.
As with my experience and observations for Whitefish west, and my conversations with those who actually rode the full "Builder" route, people just don't go in large numbers for long haul passenger service. Nothing has changed from the 1950s. The numbers still don't justify it. But clearly, the Empire Builder serves several distinct niches which, taken together, support the operation of a long distance train; in large part apparently operating as a Pacific Northwest "Night Train" and, as well, replacing the last "night train" on the East end, the Milwaukee's "Pioneer Limited," with an "evening train" that permits a late evening arrival into St. Paul. From that perspective, it is the timing of the train in its territory, not the train itself, that makes it relatively successful overall in the modern era. If the data were available, it would be an interesting exercise to see if the following were true: that the Empire Builder is a profitable train between Chicago and St. Paul, and between Whitefish and Seattle/Portland, but loses its profitability on the "big empty" between the Twin Cities and Whitefish?In that case, would it make more economic sense to have a West Empire Builder -- Billings to Spokane and Whitefish to Spokane, then Spokane to Portland and Spokane to Seattle? And a similar service on the east end, and simply abandon the unprofitable portion in between?
As with my experience and observations for Whitefish west, and my conversations with those who actually rode the full "Builder" route, people just don't go in large numbers for long haul passenger service. Nothing has changed from the 1950s. The numbers still don't justify it. But clearly, the Empire Builder serves several distinct niches which, taken together, support the operation of a long distance train; in large part apparently operating as a Pacific Northwest "Night Train" and, as well, replacing the last "night train" on the East end, the Milwaukee's "Pioneer Limited," with an "evening train" that permits a late evening arrival into St. Paul. From that perspective, it is the timing of the train in its territory, not the train itself, that makes it relatively successful overall in the modern era.
Michael-
I haven't been able to track it down but I remember an article (Trains or Classic Trains) penned by someone who started with the MILW's passenger department towards the end of the...60's, I think? Being the idealistic type, he got right to work and researched the idea of flipping the schedule of the Olympian Hi (?) to run opposite the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited. The idea was to substitute splitting the same time of day market 3 ways with letting the GN & the NP take that time of day to themselves and to take the other half of the day for the MILW. In effect the HI would be a night train in the markets where the others were day trains and vice versa. After putting everything together and presenting it to the powers that be, the response was that there was no real reason to try it, since the passenger service was marking time until it's demise, anyway. But I can't find the article, do you recall hearing anything about the idea?
Kevin C. Smith wrote: Michael-I haven't been able to track it down but I remember an article (Trains or Classic Trains) penned by someone who started with the MILW's passenger department towards the end of the...60's, I think? Being the idealistic type, he got right to work and researched the idea of flipping the schedule of the Olympian Hi (?) to run opposite the Empire Builder and North Coast Limited. The idea was to substitute splitting the same time of day market 3 ways with letting the GN & the NP take that time of day to themselves and to take the other half of the day for the MILW. In effect the HI would be a night train in the markets where the others were day trains and vice versa. After putting everything together and presenting it to the powers that be, the response was that there was no real reason to try it, since the passenger service was marking time until it's demise, anyway. But I can't find the article, do you recall hearing anything about the idea?
From what I remember, the GN Western Star ran on a quasi-"opposite" schedule already (my recollection is that the WS ran on the old EB schedule, thus providing a Western Montana to Seattle day train), so the OH would have still had time of day competition.
I recommend the Trains staff read this thread and re-publish the chart in a way that shows the data more clearly, using our questions as a guide for the revision. I personally have a problem with the fine print "Peak segment: 202 (Sandpoint, Idaho-Spokane, Wash.)" because I count 214 from Minot to Whitefish and 274 from Whitefish to the end.
Nevertheless, I find the numbers disappointing, even if they are off a bit.
Much disinformation about the Empire Builder was put forth earlier in this thread. Rather than continue to debate those whose minds were made up, I thought it best to wait for the end-of-fiscal-year operating statistics to be released by Amtrak (all are available at http://www.amtrak.com/). For the fourth consecutive year, the Empire Builder is Amtrak's single most-ridden train. In FY2007, ridership topped on-half million, nearly half again as much as the second-place train, the Coast Starlight.
.
Ridership for Amtrak Long Distance trains for FY2007 ending September 30:
1. Empire Builder: 504,977
2. Coast Starlight: 343,542
3. California Zephyr: 329,840
4. Silver Star: 329,132
5. Southwest Chief: 316,668
6. Lake Shore Limited: 312,643
7. Silver Meteor: 291,735
8. Crescent: 263,136
9. Texas Eagle: 218,321
10. Auto Train: 217,822
11. Capitol Limited: 193,748
12. City of New Orleans: 180,473
13. Palmetto: 156,998
14. Cardinal: 96,896
15. Sunset Limited: 63,336
Total Amtrak Long Distance: 3,819,267
Total Amtrak FY2007: 25,847,531
Just over 13 percent of all Long Distance ridership is on the Empire Builder; about 2% (1 in 50) of all Amtrak passengers are on the Empire Builder.
FY2007 ticket revenue / FY2006 ticket revenue / and change from FY2006:
1. Empire Builder: $53,177,760 / $48,695,783 / +9.2%
2. Auto Train: $52,883,481 / $49,351,664 / +7.2%
3. Southwest Chief: $37,935,113 / $35,616,121 / +6.5%
4. California Zephyr: $35,719,619 / $35,111,789 / +1.7%
5. Coast Starlight: $29,171,278 / $27,740,039 / +5.2%
6. Silver Meteor: $27,379,452 / $25,972,938 / +5.4%
7. Silver Star: $25,715,553 / $25,080,837 / +2.5%
8. Crescent: $24,262,171 / $23,005,056 / +5.5%
9. Lake Shore Limited: $21,421,657 / $21,840,125 / -1.9%
10. Texas Eagle: $16,424,146 / $16,839,655 / -2.5%
11. Capitol Limited: $14,877,428 / $14,638,855 / +1.6%
12. City of New Orleans: $13,311,213 / $12,487,624 / +6.6%
13. Palmetto: $11,280,047 / $10,805,478 / +4.4%
14. Sunset Limited: $6,955,881 / $5,282,241 / +31.7%
15. Cardinal: $5,453,083 / $5,552,736 / -1.8%
Total Amtrak Long Distance: $375,957,883 / $358,020,941 / +5.0
Total Amtrak: $1,519,130,083 / $1,371,271,855 / +10.8%
Percentage of Long Distance ticket revenue attributable to the Empire Builder: 14%, or about 1
out of every $7 of Long Distance revenue is generated by the Empire Builder alone.
The Empire Builder is typically one of the best performers of the Long Distance trains. Granted, on-time performance is not so great for Amtrak Long Distance trains overall. Here are the statistics for September 2007:
September 2007 Amtrak Long Distance Train on time performance percentage, and (percentage change from September 2006).
1. City of New Orleans, 91.7 (+8.3)
2. Auto Train, 87.9 (+36.2)
3. Empire Builder, 87.5 (+9.3)
4. Southwest Chief, 73.3 (-18.3)
5. Cardinal, 69.2 (+57.7)
6. Crescent, 66.7 (+10.0)
7. Silver Meteor, 61.7 (-6.2)
8. Capitol Limited, 48.3 (+36.7)
8. Lake Shore Limited, 48.3 (+14.7)
10. Coast Starlight, 45.0 (+18.3)
11. California Zephyr, 41.7 (+41.7)
12. Silver Star, 35.6 (-7.5)
13. Texas Eagle, 31.7 (+13.3)
14. Palmetto, 28.3 (-11.3)
15. Sunset Limited, 8.0 (-4.0)
Total Long Distance, 57.8 (+12.2)
The Empire Builder is typically in the top three of Long Distance trains, along with the City of New Orleans and Southwest Chief.
As for the suggestion that also voiced that the Empire Builder is only ridden west of Whitefish and between Chicago and St. Paul: The National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) reports the average trip length on the Empire Builder to be 847 miles; The United Rail Passenger Alliance (URPA) says it's 877 miles, pretty much the same. Since NARP and URPA don't agree on much, a similar figure like this must be pretty close. Since it's less than 600 miles from Whitefish to Seattle, and just over 400 from Chicago to St. Paul, the suggestion that no one is riding between Whitefish and St. Paul clearly cannot be true.
Given the superior ridership performance of the Empire Builder relative to other Amtrak Long Distance trains, it would seem unlikely that changing its route could result in increased use of the service, since no other Long Distance trains anywhere in the country perform better. With regard to a train through Southern Montana, the service does face numerous obstacles including stations, lack of equipment, and operating conditions where numerous coal trains are operated. This statement was issued by Senator Jon Tester of Montana, however:
Tester amendment explores return of southern Montana Amtrak route
Measure will also protect the Empire Builder, senator says
from the Office of Senator Jon Tester
Monday, October 29, 2007
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) Senator Jon Tester wants Congress to be "All Aboard" with the possibility of restoring passenger train service to southern Montana as long as it doesn't hurt current Amtrak service across the Hi-Line.
The U.S. Senate today accepted an amendment by Tester requiring Amtrak to evaluate whether to reinstate passenger service between Chicago and Seattle, through southern Montana, provided that such service will not negatively impact existing Amtrak routes.
"Southern Montana really needs passenger rail service, especially with the rising cost of gas and a growing number of seniors who need to travel across rural Montana," said Jim Green, president of the Montana Association of Railroad Passengers. "We support any effort to get passenger trains rolling through the southern part of the state again."
In the 1970s Amtrak operated its North Coast Hiawatha line, which roughly paralleled Interstates 94 and 90, passing through Glendive, Miles City, Billings, Bozeman, Butte and Missoula. Amtrak discontinued North Coast Hiawatha service in 1979.
Tester's amendment asks Amtrak to specifically explore the return of the old North Coast Hiawatha route, or segments of it.
"If we can get passenger train service through southern Montana back on track without jeopardizing the Empire Builder, what are we waiting for?" Tester said. "I want to make sure we have all the options on the table and this amendment does just that, while protecting service in northern Montana where train service is already critically important."
Just last week Amtrak said its Empire Builder line, which crosses through northern Montana along the Hi-Line, is its most popular overnight train. More than 500,000 people rode the Empire Builder during the last fiscal year, an increase of 1.6% over the Fiscal Year 2006.
Tester's measure is an amendment to the Amtrak Reauthorization Bill. Both he and Sen. Max Baucus are cosponsors of the reauthorization bill, which provides federal funding for passenger train service.
from Senator Jon Tester's website at: http://www.tester.senate.gov/News/record.cfm?id=286265
While the desire exists in Montana to reinstate Amtrak through the Southern part of the state, it is obvious that doing so at the expense of the Empire Builder is not favored, nor would it be tolerated.
This is the reality of the Empire Builder and the attempt to restart service in Southern Montana.
Mark Meyer
VerMontanan wrote: Much disinformation about the Empire Builder was put forth earlier in this thread. ...As for the suggestion that also voiced that the Empire Builder is only ridden west of Whitefish and between Chicago and St. Paul: The National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) reports the average trip length on the Empire Builder to be 847 miles; ... Since it's less than 600 miles from Whitefish to Seattle, and just over 400 from Chicago to St. Paul, the suggestion that no one is riding between Whitefish and St. Paul clearly cannot be true.
Much disinformation about the Empire Builder was put forth earlier in this thread.
...
As for the suggestion that also voiced that the Empire Builder is only ridden west of Whitefish and between Chicago and St. Paul: The National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) reports the average trip length on the Empire Builder to be 847 miles;
Since it's less than 600 miles from Whitefish to Seattle, and just over 400 from Chicago to St. Paul, the suggestion that no one is riding between Whitefish and St. Paul clearly cannot be true.
"The suggestion that no one is riding ..."
And where might that ridiculous suggestion appear? Or is this the creation of a false argument, just to knock something down?
The sleight of hand with the 847 mile average suggests the opposite of what the poster intended -- rather, it shows that transcontinental traffic does not support the train, but that shorter runs do; that the "night train" aspect of the Empire Builder -- which is its popularity west of Whitefish -- is indeed a strength, and that its transcontinental character a weakeness.
That is, that he shows that the average user travels only 39% of the distance that the train actually travels. Other than that, without more, averages don't show much, and can be statistically misleading used in the context the poster uses them.
A statistical analysis using 847 miles as the average, 582 as the mileage from Whitefish, and 2161 as the mileage between Seattle and Chicago, 70% of the ridership on the Empire Builder averages 582 miles, and only 30% truly transcontinental, a ratio greater than two to one. That is, for every passenger arriving in Whitefish (or a statistical area for which that represents an average), westbound an average of more than three riders leave Whitefish to complete the Westbound journey.
And for every three passengers arriving Eastbound in Whitefish, less than one (statistically speaking) continues on the journey.
This assumes that the proportion of traffic, St. Paul/Chicago, bears a weight in proportion to its mileage. If less, this could skew the percentage in favor of the west end, if high, in favor of the east end. This is, after all, a statistical analysis since that is what the poster invoked by his improper use of averages to prove a point but which could support the opposite contention instead.
When I state that passenger traffic east of Whitefish is thin, that is based not only personal observation several times a year on the train in question but a sound statistical analysis as well, and the fact that it happens to match the poster's current figures simply underscores the fact that the observation is likely statistically truer than the alternative contention.
VerMontanan wrote: Given the superior ridership performance of the Empire Builder relative to other Amtrak Long Distance trains, it would seem unlikely that changing its route could result in increased use of the service, since no other Long Distance trains anywhere in the country perform better.
Given the superior ridership performance of the Empire Builder relative to other Amtrak Long Distance trains, it would seem unlikely that changing its route could result in increased use of the service, since no other Long Distance trains anywhere in the country perform better.
This is a non sequitur. The contention makes no sense at all.
Michael
Shows also the potential ridership for an overnight Portland-Missoula version of #'s 27 and 28. Even greater potential if cars were traded at Spokane between 7-8 and 27-28 for Missoula-Seattle and Chicago-Seattle and Chicago-Portland as they do at present.
Well Michael, I guess we are seeing different things. When I rode the Empire Builder this fall the train was so packed that it took five seatings in the diner to accommodate all who wished to eat, and was in operation until the train was past Rugby, North Dakota. But your earlier comments about how the station stop at East Glacier is more used for surrounding communities rather than for Glacier Park usage, and your classic post from earlier in the thread, "The lounge/dome is must better utilized on the Portland leg along the Columbia River. Insofar as that limits breakfast before arriving in Portland to things wrapped in plastic; it at least has the benefit of the majestic scenery seen from the dome. By contrast to being herded, cow like, to the 'community seating' enforced in the dining car, fed things that may have well been formerly wrapped in plastic, served by people who are obviously on the third day and last leg of a trip that they are fed up with, and going through a deeply unpleasant tunnel experience that manages to leave diesel fumes lingering in the cars for miles thereafter, the lounge car to Portland is actually the more positive of the two alternatives" proves your lack of knowledge about the service (i.e. the term "dome") and that you're not above fictionalizing your story just to "prove" your point. (I'm aware of your fixation with degrading Cascade Tunnel, which has continuously used for longer than the Milwaukee Road's Western Extension, maybe even for a good reason, but the strong ridership and apparent lack of reported asphyxiations by passengers in the tunnel seem contrary to your claim).
kenneo wrote: Michael Shows also the potential ridership for an overnight Portland-Missoula version of #'s 27 and 28. Even greater potential if cars were traded at Spokane between 7-8 and 27-28 for Missoula-Seattle and Chicago-Seattle and Chicago-Portland as they do at present.
Notwithstanding the lengthy email of yesterday from the gentleman allegedly setting the record straight about the Empire Builder, it mainly "corrected" errors that nobody made in the first place. It then proceeded to argue against a proposal to re-route the Empire Builder which no one, to my knowledge, is currently proposing in the news items.
What I see is that there are proposals to re-start the Hiawatha service that Amtrak offered through southern Montana since that is where the bulk of the population of the state resides, and happens to offer a near perfect bell curve around the average haul distance that the Empire Builder currently maintains. This is suggestive that the distance to both St. Paul/Minneapolis to the East and Seattle/Tacoma/Portland to the West from southern Montana locations is a feasible train ride -- an ideal overnight train. Too, there are upwards of 40-45,000 college age students/staff on the Southern Tier among five University System units -- which tends to be a train travel population if the service is available.
That the train would join with the Empire Builder at Spokane for the westbound run, and similarly for the eastbound at some compatible location, certainly wouldn't hurt the Empire Builder. It could only help it. The question isn't that it isn't a good idea that could promote rail passenger travel, but rather is whether to, and then how to, finance the inherent risk of a separate, relatively short haul passenger feeder train.
Interestingly, the pressure for such a train has increased in recent years because of declining air passenger services in Montana. The hub and spoke system adopted over the past twenty years for the large airlines has substantially attenuated the time savings that air travel used to enjoy, security has made the experience unpleasant, and much of the air service is now being offered by small airlines, flying small planes not affectionately referred to by their contents -- the passengers -- as "flying culverts". And those culverts don't fly well in the drafty mountains of the Pacific Northwest.
A train ride sounds better all the time.
As gas prices go up, the risk in such a project continues to decline, and perhaps it is not an "if" but a "when" such a project will become transparently feasible.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.