MidlandMikeAs I indicated in my original post, I don't dispute the rational logic of the passenger advocacy group concerning the small stops. It's just that it does not have a realistic chance in the political arena that will decide this government sponsored service. A. Unless the advocacy group makes political contributions to the legislators, they have no political standing. B. MDOT does have some political standing, and they have already said all stops are in. C. Any towns losing service, despite their small size, will react as if the loss is an existential threat, and will have the most political effect on the legislators. Passenger service is hardly on the radar of the pols, and it's almost a no brainer to them to go along with the aggrieved voters. While some of the citizens of the big cities may prefer to bypass the small stops, they will not pushback long against the zeal of the towns losing service. On your point number (1.), I think you left out the "f" in "utility", as in "utility of an overnight (7 hour?) train... "
Wow, thats pretty negative.....
I don't look at the world that way and never have. I look at the world where each of us can make a difference with just a little effort and I don't view it as "events already set in motion there is nothing we can do about it" Myself I am a pretty persuasive letter writer and even at one point changed the direction of an entire Army Division (imagine that) via a little persuasive letter to it's General. Also, in the Army I wrote letters on behalf of Amnesty International on Army letterhead no less, much to the chagrin of my peers, seeking the release of a largely unknown poet in the West at the time whose name was Vaclav Havel.........who later was released in part due to the letters and became the PM of the Czech Republic. I know I had a impact there because Mr. Havel was gracious enough to both compose a Thank you letter to the Amnesty International letter writers group and to describe the positive impact it had on his living conditions while he was in jail amongst his Communist jailers. I have changed a lot in the current city in Texas where I live just by writing letters, helping out key City officials, making suggestions others have not considered. What it boils down to is what world do you want to live in. I choose to live in a world where I participate.
As to this specific project, your incorrect. Both MDOT and WisDOT are looking for public input beyond what the online cities want. I have already communicated my input to the project and my Email was recieved and acknowledged. Amtrak also wants to hear from it's riders and it is specifically why it has established a rider advocacy council that meets once a month and takes letters from Amtrak riders for review and consideration at meetings. You can believe it or doubt it, it is up to you I guess.
However as far as I am concerned, I have already seen the impact with my letter writing efforts across a broad area of interest. Pretty sure I have an impact based on what I have both seen and read. Lets say I am completely ignored in the case of this project......at least I tried and there are always future projects along the same corridor where they will once again seek input.
CMStPnP MidlandMike I can appreciate that they want to eliminate lightly used stops. However, when MDOT said it would make all the stops of the Empire Builder, those towns will not rereat. They would have to show that cost savings would outweigh the political fallout from cancelling those stops. Adding more frequency sounds good, but they lost me at the overnight trip. I have ridden the route only like 2-3 times and that was before 2000. This external group is attempt to influence MDOT's thinking and hopefully WisDOT as well. What I find encouraging is......... 1. They recognize the utility of an overnight train.....yaaay! 2. They recognize that Amtrak stoping 2-3 times at one stop because of length of train at a short platform stop (Columbus) is both stupid and time wasteful. You know Amtrak Management here should ask Columbus to pay for an extended platform or yank the stop......really that is what should happen here. 3. They recognize these smaller stops slow the train for everyone else but add little in the way of revenue or potential growth. 4. They recognize that the one additional train is part of a broader plan to add 2-3 more trains, so they want a realignment with the first one. 5. They are actually looking at population density and % of metro market served (this is why they want to extend to MSP and why they want a West Milwaukee station in Pewaukee, WI). I had not realized that Amtrak by only stopping in St. Paul is really only serving 33% of the Twin Cities market. 6. They aren't just swallowing the Class I railroad cost projections for the additional service, they are digging a little deeper on them (for once). I suspected all along that some of these were overly inflated. Same with the Amtrak cost projections. For example they are correct to conclude that $8 million for a new Siemens locomotive that can do 125 mph on track that has a max limit of 79-90 mph is overkill and that a leased locomotive that was newly rebuilt would be a much cheaper alternative. They should also question how Amtrak came to the conclusion that it needs 5 bi-level brand new corridor cars to cover this service? Where did they conclude the ridership would warrant that? They did conclude rightly that Amtrak had not included any spare cars in it's projections. You know these are the things that make folks start to wonder about Amtrak Management and how intelligent it is.
MidlandMike I can appreciate that they want to eliminate lightly used stops. However, when MDOT said it would make all the stops of the Empire Builder, those towns will not rereat. They would have to show that cost savings would outweigh the political fallout from cancelling those stops. Adding more frequency sounds good, but they lost me at the overnight trip.
I can appreciate that they want to eliminate lightly used stops. However, when MDOT said it would make all the stops of the Empire Builder, those towns will not rereat. They would have to show that cost savings would outweigh the political fallout from cancelling those stops.
Adding more frequency sounds good, but they lost me at the overnight trip.
I have ridden the route only like 2-3 times and that was before 2000. This external group is attempt to influence MDOT's thinking and hopefully WisDOT as well.
What I find encouraging is.........
1. They recognize the utility of an overnight train.....yaaay!
2. They recognize that Amtrak stoping 2-3 times at one stop because of length of train at a short platform stop (Columbus) is both stupid and time wasteful. You know Amtrak Management here should ask Columbus to pay for an extended platform or yank the stop......really that is what should happen here.
3. They recognize these smaller stops slow the train for everyone else but add little in the way of revenue or potential growth.
4. They recognize that the one additional train is part of a broader plan to add 2-3 more trains, so they want a realignment with the first one.
5. They are actually looking at population density and % of metro market served (this is why they want to extend to MSP and why they want a West Milwaukee station in Pewaukee, WI). I had not realized that Amtrak by only stopping in St. Paul is really only serving 33% of the Twin Cities market.
6. They aren't just swallowing the Class I railroad cost projections for the additional service, they are digging a little deeper on them (for once). I suspected all along that some of these were overly inflated. Same with the Amtrak cost projections. For example they are correct to conclude that $8 million for a new Siemens locomotive that can do 125 mph on track that has a max limit of 79-90 mph is overkill and that a leased locomotive that was newly rebuilt would be a much cheaper alternative. They should also question how Amtrak came to the conclusion that it needs 5 bi-level brand new corridor cars to cover this service? Where did they conclude the ridership would warrant that? They did conclude rightly that Amtrak had not included any spare cars in it's projections. You know these are the things that make folks start to wonder about Amtrak Management and how intelligent it is.
As I indicated in my original post, I don't dispute the rational logic of the passenger advocacy group concerning the small stops. It's just that it does not have a realistic chance in the political arena that will decide this government sponsored service.
A. Unless the advocacy group makes political contributions to the legislators, they have no political standing.
B. MDOT does have some political standing, and they have already said all stops are in.
C. Any towns losing service, despite their small size, will react as if the loss is an existential threat, and will have the most political effect on the legislators. Passenger service is hardly on the radar of the pols, and it's almost a no brainer to them to go along with the aggrieved voters. While some of the citizens of the big cities may prefer to bypass the small stops, they will not pushback long against the zeal of the towns losing service.
On your point number (1.), I think you left out the "f" in "utility", as in "utility of an overnight (7 hour?) train... "
As far as rehabbed equipment goes, I recall CMStPnP posting pictures of ex-MILW passenger equipment (made in their own shops) sitting somewhere in Arkansas at a dealer.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
As far as equipment goes isn't there a company that owns a fleet of ex-SF hi-level coaches? IIRC they were one of the bidders to run the HOOSIER STATE. If this company does exist how many cars do they have and where are they stored?
MidlandMikepolitical fallout from cancelling those stops.
How much fallout is there from towns with populations totaling <18,000 and light boardings for all three (Columbus, the Dells and Portage)? Choose one to keep. Tomah has 9,000 and Red Wing 16,000. Maybe keep Red Wing, though boardings are only 10,000.
Some forward-looking thinking, breaking from the usual "let's do X because we've always done so." You can really see that in dropping some traditional stops that generate few riders but consume a lot of time. Set the SPUD-CHI goal at 400 minutes.
Very good analysis here, good read.....especially about the part on not trusting what the host railroad says it will cost them.
http://www.allaboardmn.org/?m=201601
Finally a rail passenger advocacy group that cuts through the BS from both the Railroads and Railfan community and gets down to business.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.