# HSR for MSP to Duluth progressing



## CHamilton

Plans Progress for High-Speed Rail from Mpls to Duluth



> The Northern Lights Express, a proposed high-speed rail line connecting the Twin Cities and Duluth, is now picking up speed, transportation leaders believe, after getting an environmental green light and gathering public comment Thursday night in what the person spearheading the project described as "a big milestone."
> "We are going to move forward," Julie Carr, the NLX project manager, said in an interview.
> 
> Carr led an environmental assessment open house Thursday at the Armed Forces Community Center in Cambridge, where a court reporter transcribed public comments and large posterboards showcased the project, which MnDOT estimates will cost between $800-$950 million.
> 
> ...
> 
> The 155-mile route would speed passengers at up to 110 miles per hour between Minneapolis and Duluth, a trip that would take between two to two and a half hours, since speeds would be slower in the cities and time would be factored in for stops at stations along the way.
> 
> Cambridge is one of four proposed stops, along with Coon Rapids; Hinckley; and Superior, Wisconsin. Click here for a route map.
> 
> The state is using $8 million in initial funding to move into a preliminary engineering stage later this year, which could last for two or three years.
> 
> Final funding to actually build the project has not been secured.


----------



## Train Rider

Native Minnesotan here.

Not the best use of resources. If new line is to be built then run it to Rochester, which has much more going on than does Duluth.

I can think of lots of political reasons why Duluth, I can think of lots of Indian gaming reasons why Duluth via Hinckley, but I can't think of a single reason why a billion bucks for a line to Duluth is a good use of that money when there are other projects in the state that can serve more passengers.


----------



## jis

Yeah I have been scratching my head a bit about the Duluth thing myself. but then again, I know next to nothing about travel patterns in Minnesota, so I had chalked it up as my own unfamiliarity until I read the message above.


----------



## fairviewroad

Don't forget that Duluth is across the stateline from Superior, WI. According to the census bureau the Duluth metro area

is population 279,000 while the Rochester metro area is population 209,000.

So Duluth has Rochester beat in terms of overall population. That in and of itself proves nothing. But it's a relevant

data point nonetheless.


----------



## Train Rider

fairviewroad said:


> Don't forget that Duluth is across the stateline from Superior, WI. According to the census bureau the Duluth metro areais population 279,000 while the Rochester metro area is population 209,000.
> 
> So Duluth has Rochester beat in terms of overall population. That in and of itself proves nothing. But it's a relevant
> 
> data point nonetheless.


Rochester is a growing, affluent city with the Mayo Clinic and related high-end businesses, Duluth is a struggling blue-collar port city that has lost more than 20 percent of its population in the past few decades. It is the gateway to the scenic North Shore of Lake Superior but a train will never take you past Two Harbors.

I love Duluth, but would never take a train there.


----------



## Anderson

Remind me: Is Hinkley the casino stop they were looking at?


----------



## fairviewroad

Train Rider said:


> fairviewroad said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't forget that Duluth is across the stateline from Superior, WI. According to the census bureau the Duluth metro areais population 279,000 while the Rochester metro area is population 209,000.
> 
> So Duluth has Rochester beat in terms of overall population. That in and of itself proves nothing. But it's a relevant
> 
> data point nonetheless.
> 
> 
> 
> Rochester is a growing, affluent city with the Mayo Clinic and related high-end businesses, Duluth is a struggling blue-collar port city that has lost more than 20 percent of its population in the past few decades. It is the gateway to the scenic North Shore of Lake Superior but a train will never take you past Two Harbors.
> 
> I love Duluth, but would never take a train there.
Click to expand...

I expect the train is for people living in Duluth to travel to the Twin Cities, not vice versa. And if inbound traffic is the goal, then a higher population

in the outlying city is a plus. Point taken about the trajectories of the two metro areas, however.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Train Rider said:


> I love Duluth, but would never take a train there.


I would !!!


----------



## afigg

Train Rider said:


> Rochester is a growing, affluent city with the Mayo Clinic and related high-end businesses, Duluth is struggling blue-collar port city that has lost more than 20 percent of its population in the past few decades. It is the gateway to the scenic North Shore of Lake Superior but a train will never take you past Two Harbors.
> I love Duluth, but would never take a train there.


Checking the stats on Duluth, the city bottomed out in population decline in the 1990 census and has had been around 86K since then. The metropolitan area has a population of 280K.
While the city may be struggling, the question is how to help boost the economy and improve transportation options to and from the city. Reasonably fast intercity train service to the Twin Cities is one way to do that. Now whether train service to Rochester MN should be given priority over service to Duluth, that is up to the politicians who control the levers of power and the planning staffs to determine/ As it stands, this is a PE and EIS study. They are a long way from an official decision, getting the funds, and starting construction.


----------



## jphjaxfl

The prior Amtrak train between the Twin Cities and Duluth was fairly well patronized. I remember riding it in 1970s when most seats were occupied. It was not very fast at 3 1/2 to 4 hours. Originally it left the Twin Cities about 8AM and arrived in Duluth at 11:45AM. It returned at 5:30PM and arrived in the Twin Cities about 9PM. Towards the end it was run as the Northstar from Chicago to Duluth. Local patronage from the Twin Cities to Duluth dropped off because the train from Chicago was often late. They really needed 2to trains per day in each direction to give choices. The MN legislature became more conservative and withdrew the MN subsidy and that was the end of that.


----------



## fairviewroad

Seems like if you had a once-a-day frequency the schedule should be geared toward same-day round-trips from Duluth

into the Twin Cities. Leave Duluth at 7 a.m. getting into MSP at 9:30 a.m., and the return trip leaving MSP at 6 p.m.

arriving Duluth at 8:30 p.m. Train overnights in Duluth...repeat the process the next day, etc. If you had the funding/demand

you could easily squeeze in a mid-day round-trip as well.

Would be nice if it made for good connections on the EB for people heading to Chicago, but the current callings times

for 7/8 at MSP wouldn't make for good same-day connections to Chicago.


----------



## Dovecote

Anderson said:


> Remind me: Is Hinkley the casino stop they were looking at?


Hinckley does have a casino, Grand Casino Hinckley, so it is probably the "casino" stop in question. My wife was born in the area and we frequent the casino when we go back visiting her family.


----------



## George Harris

For a service over a distance of this length, once a day is hardly worth doing. Twice to three times a day is better. If you look at the North Carolina example, if I recall correctly when they added the third Raleigh - Charlotte train, the ridership *per each* increased.

It does not matter if the train is fast if you have to wait a long time between the time you want to go and the time you can go. Over distances of this range, you simply drive instead rather than endure a long wait.


----------



## Train Rider

If you look at the map, the line would go to downtown Minneapolis instead of the St. Paul Union Depot, which will be the Empire Builder's station. This lack of a connection could be addressed if Amtrak put a station NW of Minneapolis where the two lines would merge at Coon Rapids.

However, if an additional train between Chicago and the Twin Cities is ever put in place, it would be better for the Duluth line to marry up with Amtrak at St. Paul -- greater potential for cross use.

MN has to figure out how to get people to ride the Northstar Commuter line before it undertakes HSR to Duluth. http://www.startribune.com/local/north/161518155.html?refer=y


----------



## jebr

Train Rider said:


> MN has to figure out how to get people to ride the Northstar Commuter line before it undertakes HSR to Duluth. http://www.startribune.com/local/north/161518155.html?refer=y


Yep. Realistically, the money would be *much* better spent extending the line to St. Cloud and increasing frequencies on the Northstar. They're halfway there already, they have equipment and crews, and there's already some service along the entire corridor already (when including the Link.) Minnesota needs to finish what it started before working on more lines.


----------



## Anderson

The long-term story seems to be that one train per day doesn't tend to work too well (there are a lot of places that a single daily frequency seems to have been/turned into a false start). 2x daily works alright as a rule, and 3-5x daily seems to be a sweet spot.


----------



## Ispolkom

I don't see how this project is progressing without Anoka County on board. I'd agree that it's much more important to finish the Northstar line to St. Cloud, especially because the present poor performance of the Northstar is used as a stick to beat every other rail transit project in the Twin Cities. Almost as though it was designed intentionally to fail.


----------



## Train Rider

Ispolkom said:


> I don't see how this project is progressing without Anoka County on board. I'd agree that it's much more important to finish the Northstar line to St. Cloud, especially because the *present poor performance of the Northstar is used as a stick to beat every other rail transit project in the Twin Cities*. Almost as though it was designed intentionally to fail.


That is why bad rail projects are worse than no rail projects.


----------



## Aaron

I don't know anything about where would be best to put a rail line in MN, and I guess it's their money to do with as they please. But... When I read this, I can just imagine so many other places in the US where a new rail service would make much more sense. If someone was going to spend $1bil on linking two cities, I'd much rather it was AZ spending it to link Phoenix and Tucson, just for selfish reasons.

So, here's a game: If $1bil was up for grabs, like it just fell from the sky, and you could use it to create a new rail link or new service connecting two areas, where would _you_ put it? Some basic rules apply to make it comparable to MN: <200 miles, up to 110mph. So, what would _you_ do?


----------



## Anderson

Aaron said:


> I don't know anything about where would be best to put a rail line in MN, and I guess it's their money to do with as they please. But... When I read this, I can just imagine so many other places in the US where a new rail service would make much more sense. If someone was going to spend $1bil on linking two cities, I'd much rather it was AZ spending it to link Phoenix and Tucson, just for selfish reasons.
> So, here's a game: If $1bil was up for grabs, like it just fell from the sky, and you could use it to create a new rail link or new service connecting two areas, where would _you_ put it? Some basic rules apply to make it comparable to MN: <200 miles, up to 110mph. So, what would _you_ do?


Not Duluth? Joking aside, and depending on your definition of "new service", [RGH-]RVR-WAS would probably get my vote assuming it was feasible with that kind of money (most projects are more expensive, but they also tend to assume faster speeds). After that, I start dumping money into Florida and I don't give a "hoot" if the FEC runs the trains and makes money off of the public investment. Then it's into extending the CHI-Quad Cities service through to OMA. After that? Front Range in Colorado, followed by new services extending off the NEC such as serving Scranton, etc. (though a lot of those run into terrain issues), followed _then_ by other Midwest projects.


----------



## CHamilton

Who will pay if NLX fails?By David Levinson on April 15, 2013 10:10 AM






> I was asked to write an opinion piece for The Pine City Pioneer: Who will pay if NLX fails? in response to one put forward by project consultant Alexander Metcalf of TEMS:
> 
> 
> 
> "TEMS, the consultant hired to advocate for the project, asserts that revenue will exceed operating costs at higher speeds. I agree that both revenue and costs will increase with speed, whether one increases faster than the other is an empirical question on which forecasts are highly questionable for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is lack of existing service on which to base such assumptions. Many have suggested the Downeaster is the most comparable market.
> The Downeaster already carried 300,000 riders in 2005 and was in fact forecast to carry 625,000 passengers between Boston and Portland in 2015, so, [the fact] that it exceeds 525,000 riders in 2012 after a major investment is hardly testament to it beating targets.
> http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/report-downeaster-final.pdfhttp://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/report-downeaster-final.pdf
> http://www.edrgroup.com/pdf/report-downeaster-final.pdf
> 
> More important is to compare the structure of the markets. Boston and Portland are less than 100 miles apart. Duluth is 137 miles from Minneapolis, so you would expect more trips between Boston and Portland if the sizes of the city pairs were equal. They are not.
> The population of metropolitan Portland, Maine (516,000) exceeds that of Duluth (280,000); while the metropolitan Boston combined statistical area (7.6 million) remains larger than the Twin Cities (3.6 million). The number of trips between two places is a product of their sizes and inversely proportional to the travel time. On a population basis alone we expect the Boston to Portland market to have almost four times as many trips as Minneapolis to Duluth...."


----------



## Nathanael

Aaron said:


> I don't know anything about where would be best to put a rail line in MN, and I guess it's their money to do with as they please. But... When I read this, I can just imagine so many other places in the US where a new rail service would make much more sense. If someone was going to spend $1bil on linking two cities, I'd much rather it was AZ spending it to link Phoenix and Tucson, just for selfish reasons.
> So, here's a game: If $1bil was up for grabs, like it just fell from the sky, and you could use it to create a new rail link or new service connecting two areas, where would _you_ put it? Some basic rules apply to make it comparable to MN: <200 miles, up to 110mph. So, what would _you_ do?


Ithaca, NY to Andover, NJ (onward on existing tracks to Hoboken for NYC), via Scranton, PA and Binghamton, NY. This is known as "selfish local bias".



If my parochial local interests were satisfied or not an option, I'd pick something else. Actually, before starting a new service, I'd improve some old services: first priority for me would be a fast passenger-exclusive route from Chicago Union Station eastward, for the joint use of the Michigan trains, New Orleans/Carbondale trains, and East Coast trains all at once.

Bluntly, the Duluth project is advancing because the region around Duluth would really, really like its passenger trains back. It's a source of votes to put the train back in. By contrast, many areas don't really care enough for anyone to vote on that basis. I see nothing wrong in pandering to local taste.

Agreed that Northstar needs to get to St. Cloud. I think St. Cloud even cares enough to push for it, perhaps.


----------



## MattW

Aaron said:


> I don't know anything about where would be best to put a rail line in MN, and I guess it's their money to do with as they please. But... When I read this, I can just imagine so many other places in the US where a new rail service would make much more sense. If someone was going to spend $1bil on linking two cities, I'd much rather it was AZ spending it to link Phoenix and Tucson, just for selfish reasons.
> So, here's a game: If $1bil was up for grabs, like it just fell from the sky, and you could use it to create a new rail link or new service connecting two areas, where would _you_ put it? Some basic rules apply to make it comparable to MN: <200 miles, up to 110mph. So, what would _you_ do?


Atlanta-Chattanooga, though I'd settle for 79mph. Might could do it for less, but at the expense of greater travel time. As Bill Haithcoat and George Harris have pointed out before, the line is CURVY!

Alternately, I'd just use 1 billion for Atlanta commuter rail! (definitely less than 200 miles!  )


----------



## jis

Nathanael said:


> Aaron said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about where would be best to put a rail line in MN, and I guess it's their money to do with as they please. But... When I read this, I can just imagine so many other places in the US where a new rail service would make much more sense. If someone was going to spend $1bil on linking two cities, I'd much rather it was AZ spending it to link Phoenix and Tucson, just for selfish reasons.
> 
> So, here's a game: If $1bil was up for grabs, like it just fell from the sky, and you could use it to create a new rail link or new service connecting two areas, where would _you_ put it? Some basic rules apply to make it comparable to MN: <200 miles, up to 110mph. So, what would _you_ do?
> 
> 
> 
> Ithaca, NY to Andover, NJ (onward on existing tracks to Hoboken for NYC), via Scranton, PA and Binghamton, NY. This is known as "selfish local bias".
Click to expand...

 Actually I'd seriously consider using it to complete a higher speed connection from Port Morris NJ (Lake Hopatcong) to Scranton and then upgrade to Binghamton NY. That should exhaust the 1 billion, and open up possibilities of a second viable route via the Southern Tier from New York to Buffalo, and also a route from NE Pennsylvania to Albany, with a little additional connecting track work at Schenectady.  Of course not to mention, it would also facilitate offloading I80 a bit with some well run regional service between Scranton via Morris County and Essex County in NJ and then onto Hoboken or New York.

Potentially bring back the 21st century Phoebe Snow!!!

Just dreamin' mind you


----------



## jphjaxfl

The Northstar commuter trains terminate at Big Lake (middle of nowhere )Thats instead of St.Cloud because a certain congress person who ran for President pushed for less funding for a shorter rout.


----------



## grover9559

jphjaxfl said:


> The Northstar commuter trains terminate at Big Lake (middle of nowhere )Thats instead of St.Cloud because a certain congress person who ran for President pushed for less funding for a shorter rout.


Should be fairly easy to extend existing service to St. Cloud, especially since this certain congress person is not running for re-election. Northstar Service sure beats driving on US10.


----------



## jebr

grover9559 said:


> jphjaxfl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Northstar commuter trains terminate at Big Lake (middle of nowhere )Thats instead of St.Cloud because a certain congress person who ran for President pushed for less funding for a shorter rout.
> 
> 
> 
> Should be fairly easy to extend existing service to St. Cloud, especially since this certain congress person is not running for re-election. Northstar Service sure beats driving on US10.
Click to expand...

The biggest problem is that BNSF will want some money to double track from Big Lake to Clear Lake before allowing service to St. Cloud.

Honestly, I think Metro Transit needs to invest in a stop at Foley Blvd. Park & Ride. That station has plenty of express bus riders already and could probably utilize the extra capacity train service provides.


----------



## grover5995

jphjaxfl said:


> The prior Amtrak train between the Twin Cities and Duluth was fairly well patronized. I remember riding it in 1970s when most seats were occupied. It was not very fast at 3 1/2 to 4 hours. Originally it left the Twin Cities about 8AM and arrived in Duluth at 11:45AM. It returned at 5:30PM and arrived in the Twin Cities about 9PM. Towards the end it was run as the Northstar from Chicago to Duluth. Local patronage from the Twin Cities to Duluth dropped off because the train from Chicago was often late. They really needed 2to trains per day in each direction to give choices. The MN legislature became more conservative and withdrew the MN subsidy and that was the end of that.


The states of IL, WI and MN are currently taking a serous look at a 2nd Chicago-MSP train that might continue on to Duluth. In order to realize its full potential, there would need to be additional trains during the day between MSP-Duluth. Rochester is a good proposal but it would require all-new right-of-way for much of the distance. Gov. Dayton and the current legislature seems to be a little easier to work with.


----------



## Nathanael

FWIW, the current ongoing study is of Chicago-MSP; the lead agency is MinnDOT. They'd really like a train without the delays of the Empire Builder.

The study is supposed to come in sometime in mid-2014, and if it looks cheap enough, it could be a real possibility for funding from the MN legislature.

It should be cheap enough. The route is short enough, and the cities involved big enough, to have pretty high ridership if it runs on time. St. Paul Union Depot has more than enough tracks for it, as does Chicago Union Station north side. There would be no new stations. It's just a matter of finding a slot on the various railroads, and getting equipment. A slot can probably be obtained from Milwaukee to Chicago using one of the Hiawatha slots. The "807/808" coaches could be taken off the Empire Builder. So the amount of equipment needed wouldn't be that much, either.

If this happens, the inevitable result will be that CP will pay even less attention to timekeeping for the Empire Builder, since all the "time sensitive" traffic will be on the new train. That's OK.


----------



## jphjaxfl

Nathanael said:


> FWIW, the current ongoing study is of Chicago-MSP; the lead agency is MinnDOT. They'd really like a train without the delays of the Empire Builder.
> 
> The study is supposed to come in sometime in mid-2014, and if it looks cheap enough, it could be a real possibility for funding from the MN legislature.
> 
> It should be cheap enough. The route is short enough, and the cities involved big enough, to have pretty high ridership if it runs on time. St. Paul Union Depot has more than enough tracks for it, as does Chicago Union Station north side. There would be no new stations. It's just a matter of finding a slot on the various railroads, and getting equipment. A slot can probably be obtained from Milwaukee to Chicago using one of the Hiawatha slots. The "807/808" coaches could be taken off the Empire Builder. So the amount of equipment needed wouldn't be that much, either.
> 
> If this happens, the inevitable result will be that CP will pay even less attention to timekeeping for the Empire Builder, since all the "time sensitive" traffic will be on the new train. That's OK.


They would really need to market the separate Chicago - Twin Cities Train. I lived in the Twin Cities for 20 years total in 2 different segments. I knew lot of people who *used *to take Amtrak from the Twin Cities to Chicago. The majority of them now fly because the Empire Builder has been unreliable for a number of years. The service would need to be reliable and well marketed to get those people back.


----------



## Anderson

Depending on how the numbers look, I could see the state springing for 10-12 bilevels off the current order if it would save enough on equipment charges.

As to ridership, the Builder will likely bleed most of its traffic EB due to the horrendous OTP. WB is another story, however: The Builder doesn't tend to have OTP issues into MSP, it's got a full diner, and for a similar example the Silver Star still retains quite a bit of traffic NB out of RVR while the Meteor retains a decent amount SB into RVR. Both have desirable schedules for some folks, after all. This is likely to create some interesting issues...if you get a net of 25,000 folks who want to go WB on the Builder but EB on the state train, that's a headache waiting to happen.

Honestly, if I'm Amtrak, I'd retain 807 and 808 on the timetable. However, I'd only run a spare car for 807 (the WB coach), and instead hook the car onto the state train in some sort of agreement to help with the asymmetric traffic that's likely to develop there.


----------



## Ispolkom

Anderson said:


> Depending on how the numbers look, I could see the state springing for 10-12 bilevels off the current order if it would save enough on equipment charges.


Sure, as long as either no state money was involved, or Wisconsin picked up part of the tab.


----------



## Nathanael

Anderson said:


> WB is another story, however: The Builder doesn't tend to have OTP issues into MSP, it's got a full diner, and for a similar example the Silver Star still retains quite a bit of traffic NB out of RVR while the Meteor retains a decent amount SB into RVR. Both have desirable schedules for some folks, after all. This is likely to create some interesting issues...if you get a net of 25,000 folks who want to go WB on the Builder but EB on the state train, that's a headache waiting to happen.


The current Empire Builder schedule is pretty much designed around the Chicago-Twin Cities service.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a state-run train running very close to the same timeslots, maybe a couple of hours difference. Think about it this way:

(1) The main market is Minnesota residents visiting Chicago, not vice versa.

(2) The timetable is too long to serve day trips. (And you can't run the service with one trainset.)

(3) You don't want to run overnight.

This gives you two options for the westbound:

(A) depart afternoon, arrive evening

(B) depart morning, arrive afternoon

And two options for the eastbound:

(A) depart morning, arrive afternoon

(B) depart afternoon, arrive evening

Given that you're serving people from Minnesota visiting Chicago, you want to maximize time available in Chicago on a short trip, so you pick (A) both times, and you have a schedule which is pretty much the current Empire Builder schedule.

If the MSP train runs in close to the same slot as the Empire Builder, this is going to cause much less complaint from BNSF and CP, who can "fleet" the passenger trains if they're running on time.

Alternatively, if there is a standalone train on roughly this schedule, this allows the Empire Builder to move to a different schedule. It could be one more focused on its western connections: departing later eastbound, departing earlier westbound. Or it could be one more guaranteed to make Chicago connections: departing earlier eastbound, departing later westbound. Either way it would probably provide worse MSP-Chicago service.

So I don't think there will be much schedule competition between a new train and the Empire Builder for MSP-Chicago service. Some people may wish to take the Empire Builder in order to use the dining car or sleepers, true. I don't think this is going to be a huge group of people, particularly if the prices for the Empire Builder are kept slightly higher than the new train on MSP-CHI.

Regarding Minnesota's potential willingness to let Wisconsin "freeload", I looked at the PIP at the top 10 Empire Builder markets and what would happen to them:

Chicago-MSP (8%) -- new train

Chicago-Seattle (4%) -- Empire Builder

Chicago-La Crosse (3%) -- new train, and this benefits Minnesota (La Crescent)

Portland-Pasco (2%) -- Empire Builder

Chicago-Portland (2%) -- Empire Builder

Chicago-Winona (2%) -- new train, and this benefits Minnesota

Portland-Spokane (2%) -- Empire Builder

Minot-MSP (2%) -- Empire Builder

Chicago- Wis Dells (2%) -- new train, first "freeloading" from Wisconsin

Portland-Whitefish (1%) -- Empire Builder

So, just looking at the top 10 markets, 15% of the Empire Builder traffic would go to the new train, and of that, 13% would be Minnesota-benefiting traffic. Of course, I assume the standalone train would do better than that, but it goes to show what portion of the new train's traffic would be Minnesota-centric.

A plausible one-a-day service could be operated with 2 trainsets. If Minnesota decided to tag onto the bilevel order using the existing configurations, each would probably start with 1 locomotive, 1 "cab/baggage" car, 1 "cafe/business class" car, and 1-2 coaches. That's 6-8 cars and 2 locos -- not a lot. Enough to scrounge up by paying equipment charges to Amtrak, even. Or to Illinois, if some of its services take longer to get going than expected (which they might).

I could see Illinois paying for part of the service even if Wisconsin didn't; and if it absorbed a Hiawatha slot, I could see Wisconsin paying something even under Walker's government. The main obstacle in Minnesota is a retrograde group of anti-rail legislators from certain suburbs, and while that's an obstacle, I don't think it will last.

This leaves the obstacle of how much ransom CP will hold Minnesota up for -- if they demand a king's ransom, obviously, the train won't happen. We won't find out until the study is published, and maybe not even then.

Marketing would certainly be necessary... but also straightforward. I think it would be worth being honest and advertising "This train starts in St. Paul -- so it will leave on time."


----------



## jebr

I question the assertion that a train shouldn't run overnight. Granted, without sleepers it may be a somewhat hard sell, but I don't see anything particularly _wrong_ with running overnight. One of the reasons why I almost always take Megabus in the MSP - CHI corridor is the fact that I can travel overnight and basically sleep through the trip. I'd be willing to pay a bit of a premium, though probably not current Amtrak prices, for a coach seat on an overnight train on the MSP - CHI corridor.

Many of the overnight buses are full, too, so I'm not the only one that thinks this way. Enough for a train load? Not sure, but I wouldn't discount it immediately.

Also, I'm not sure BNSF would need to be in the negotiations at all, unless we were to run the new train north of MSP (which may make sense for political purposes, though with all the delays even between FAR and MSP lately, I don't think I want it starting before MSP. BNSF seems to have bitten off *way* more than it can chew on the Builder's line.)


----------



## jphjaxfl

jebr said:


> I question the assertion that a train shouldn't run overnight. Granted, without sleepers it may be a somewhat hard sell, but I don't see anything particularly _wrong_ with running overnight. One of the reasons why I almost always take Megabus in the MSP - CHI corridor is the fact that I can travel overnight and basically sleep through the trip. I'd be willing to pay a bit of a premium, though probably not current Amtrak prices, for a coach seat on an overnight train on the MSP - CHI corridor.
> 
> Many of the overnight buses are full, too, so I'm not the only one that thinks this way. Enough for a train load? Not sure, but I wouldn't discount it immediately.
> 
> Also, I'm not sure BNSF would need to be in the negotiations at all, unless we were to run the new train north of MSP (which may make sense for political purposes, though with all the delays even between FAR and MSP lately, I don't think I want it starting before MSP. BNSF seems to have bitten off *way* more than it can chew on the Builder's line.)


When Amtrak operated the Northstar from Duluth to Midway Station to Chicago leaving the Twin Cities about 10:30PM and arriving in Chicago around 8:00AM, I used to ride it frequently as it was perfect for a weekend in Chicago. Sometimes I would get a roomette in 10/6 and sometimes I would go coach. I would go down to Chicago on Thursday or Friday night and return on the Empire Builder on Sunday or Monday. It also made good connections to Detroit or St. Louis. The train was well patronized and the Duluth-Twin Cities leg was subsidized by MN.


----------



## Ispolkom

Nathanael said:


> I could see Illinois paying for part of the service even if Wisconsin didn't; and if it absorbed a Hiawatha slot, I could see Wisconsin paying something even under Walker's government. The main obstacle in Minnesota is a retrograde group of anti-rail legislators from certain suburbs, and while that's an obstacle, I don't think it will last.


The real problem, I think, is that there isn't any group of pro-rail legislators. The default is to do nothing (or rather, to spend money on roads), and you need advocates for intercity rail to overcome that. Where are they?

Like *jebr*, I don't see the problem with an overnight train, but perhaps that's because my most common trip is overnight from St. Paul to Minot. It wouldn't do much to serve intermediate cities in Wisconsin, but if you don't pay, you don't play.

The biggest problem (other than the lack of any prorail political will in Minnesota) is the lack of spare capacity on any rail route between the Twin Cities and Chicago. BNSF's problems are well-known, but CP is also running full with tank cars of oil and hopper cars of frack sand, and has a far less robust built infrastructure.


----------



## Anderson

The question of whether it's a difference of thirty minutes or three hours is not trivial in this respect. If the scheduling is tight (such as is the case with the Lynchburger and the Crescent), that'll facilitate more traffic shifting over; if the scheduling is looser, less will since you effectively get two markets.

However, even with the Lynchburger, it seems that a good deal of business has slid back over to the Crescent in the last two years: Per NARP's stats, the Crescent has seen ridership at CVS jump by about 60% (and at LYH by 50%), and two of the top ridership pairs are CVS-NYP (#5) and CVS-WAS (#8). While I suspect part of this is a rebound as the Lynchburger has increasingly filled up, so folks who switched to the Regional are getting pushed back to the Crescent once again. This is reinforced by the fact that the Lynchburger's numbers are flat for both stations at the same time.

Additionally, I can't see Amtrak ditching the CHI-MSP market, at least WB, given its current size. If MN makes a hard bid to undercut Amtrak's fares and a lot of people jump, they might, but as long as the Builder has a decent amount of traffic in that pair, it would be irresponsible of Amtrak to abandon it. As you noted, those major pairs are about 75-80k of the Builder's riders (and you probably have another 15-25k from the smaller pairs)...you do NOT dump that much traffic without a good reason.

Finally, I think you do discount the share of traffic that would be CHI-MKE. The odds of this train locking out the Milwakuee stations seem pretty low, after all, and at times that's just going to be leaving money on the table. The train might get "space locked" starting at Milwaukee (i.e. MN limits the amount of space available for short hop traffic there), and MN might nudge the price up there to try and avoid having the train get swamped, but I can't see them freezing out Milwaukee.

=================================

One other thought: An overnight train on this route would be an excellent proposition, though it is sadly unlikely. It probably does make the most sense as the third or fourth train on the route (i.e. as a second or third corridor train), but I'm skeptical of the idea that we'd see a state (other than CA or NY under the right circumstances) try to start up an overnight train of their own.


----------



## Paulus

jebr said:


> I question the assertion that a train shouldn't run overnight. Granted, without sleepers it may be a somewhat hard sell, but I don't see anything particularly _wrong_ with running overnight. One of the reasons why I almost always take Megabus in the MSP - CHI corridor is the fact that I can travel overnight and basically sleep through the trip. I'd be willing to pay a bit of a premium, though probably not current Amtrak prices, for a coach seat on an overnight train on the MSP - CHI corridor.


Overnight service does not do well, especially given how large of a percentage of trips come from the intermediate markets. Consider too that it is an 8 hour trip which means either a very late departure or a very early arrival at either terminal and horrible times for any intermediate traffic.



Anderson said:


> One other thought: An overnight train on this route would be an excellent proposition, though it is sadly unlikely. It probably does make the most sense as the third or fourth train on the route (i.e. as a second or third corridor train), but I'm skeptical of the idea that we'd see a state (other than CA or NY under the right circumstances) try to start up an overnight train of their own.


California tried an overnight train, _The Spirit of California_, which was cancelled after poor ridership.


----------



## Nathanael

jebr said:


> I question the assertion that a train shouldn't run overnight. Granted, without sleepers it may be a somewhat hard sell, but I don't see anything particularly _wrong_ with running overnight.


I graciously concede your point!
However, given the issue of sleepers and appropriateness of them for an overnight train, might it make more sense to run the state train as a day train and reschedule the Empire Builder to run overnight between the Twin Cities and MSP? This combination might get the best ridership and revenue overall.

Additional upsides: The "new" Empire Builder would have daytime running in North Dakota (where ridership has been booming due to the oil boom), and a good daytime schedule for Spokane-Seattle and Spokane-Portland.

Downsides: nighttime running in Montana, and breaking same-day connections with the Coast Starlight.



Ispolkom said:


> The real problem, I think, is that there isn't any group of pro-rail legislators. The default is to do nothing (or rather, to spend money on roads), and you need advocates for intercity rail to overcome that. Where are they?


Where? If you want a geographical answer, they come from St. Paul, Minneapolis, Rochester, Duluth, and Northfield. To my knowledge. The desirability of Chicago access is probably the only thing they can agree on; they've been kind of pulling at cross-purposes otherwise.


----------



## Anderson

Mod note: This topic has been split. Discussion on service in California can be found here: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/58564-revived-spirit-of-california-split-from-hsr-for-msp/page-0


----------



## CHamilton

Open houses slated for proposed Minneapolis-Duluth high-speed rail service



> The Minnesota Department of Transportation will host four open houses next month to solicit public input and answer questions on the proposed Northern Lights Express (NLX) high-speed rail line between Minneapolis and Duluth, Minn.
> 
> The meetings will held Dec. 4 in Superior, Wis.; Dec. 8 in Sandstone, Minn.; Dec. 9 in Cambridge, Minn.; and Dec. 10 in Hinckley, Minn., according to a MnDOT press release. NLX stations have been proposed for Cambridge, Hinckley and Superior, while Sandstone is being considered as a potential site for a light maintenance facility.


----------



## grover5995

Ispolkom said:


> I don't see how this project is progressing without Anoka County on board. I'd agree that it's much more important to finish the Northstar line to St. Cloud, especially because the present poor performance of the Northstar is used as a stick to beat every other rail transit project in the Twin Cities. Almost as though it was designed intentionally to fail.


Northstar was originally supposed to run all the way to St. Cloud but a certain congresswoman from MN moved to kill the funds for extended service. This decision was probably based on ideology and not economics.


----------



## CHamilton

> Five-million dollars in federal grant money is now paying for preliminary engineering studies. An additional $3 million in state bonding dollars will cover early environmental reviews.
> 
> Both studies should be completed in early 2016.
> 
> The biggest hurdle will follow that when applications are made for construction funding. That would happen sometime in 2016, which just happens to be a presidential election year when funding could be difficult to secure.
> 
> But should it be successful, construction could begin by 2017 with completion and operation scheduled for early 2020.


http://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2014/12/09/high-speed-passenger-rail-planned-from-twin-cities-to-duluth/

H/T to TraneMan


----------



## Anderson

If this comes together, I hope they're able to work out a second CHI-MSP train that either connects or runs through. For reference, vis-a-vis the winter 1980 timetable, the Builder and North Star are an hour faster CHI-MSP; if MSP-Duluth takes two hours as planned, that would be another 1:45 off of the old timetable (a 13:05 trip would be plugged in at about 10:20 or so now). Granted, this would still be a good route for an overnight train to connect through...but that's a good third/fourth train. A through connection of any sort would serve both services well.


----------



## DSS&A

The Northernlights Express High Speed Rail project has received an approved NEPA Environmental Assessment approval finding from the FRA. The project stakeholders can now work to find funding and build this HSR Passenger Rail project.

https://www.progressiverailroading.com/high_speed_rail/news/FRA-rules-no-significant-impact-for-Minneapolis-Duluth-express-rail-project--54144


----------



## jis

Apparently anything that travels a few mph above 79 is considered “High Speed” in the US these days. How 20th Century! [emoji57]

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## Ziv

jis said:


> Apparently anything that travels a few mph above 79 is considered “High Speed” in the US these days. How 20th Century! [emoji57]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


"Higher speed" Express line. They couched that press release carefully. So we can file it in the "Accurate but slightly misleading" category. [emoji10]


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> Apparently anything that travels a few mph above 79 is considered “High Speed” in the US these days. How 20th Century! [emoji57]
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


I'd rather have a 79mph+ train that does instead of a 200mph train that doesn't have as good an average speed. That's the real problem in this country - average speed on Amtrak trains (except in a few cases) is so slow, one can watch the cars on the 35mph parallel road go zipping past. Even walkers outrun trains sitting on sidings while waiting for the four freights to go by. Top speed is meaningless. Average speed and time to destination are what count.


----------



## jebr

Looking at the negotiated transportation budget, it looks like there's no operational funding for MSP - Duluth or MSP - Chicago in the two-year budget (the FY 22-23 listed in the spreadsheet is projections based on current spending levels, not ratified budgets.) There could be some money in the bonding bill, but based on current rumblings I'm not optimistic for any one-time capital funding there.

On the plus side, there is money to properly study extending Northstar to St. Cloud. If the study is positive, I'd expect to see some traction on that fairly quickly since there's a lot more advocacy around that currently than either a Duluth train or a second daily train to Chicago.

https://twitter.com/Stowydad/status/1131243458134454273


----------



## bretton88

jebr said:


> Looking at the negotiated transportation budget, it looks like there's no operational funding for MSP - Duluth or MSP - Chicago in the two-year budget (the FY 22-23 listed in the spreadsheet is projections based on current spending levels, not ratified budgets.) There could be some money in the bonding bill, but based on current rumblings I'm not optimistic for any one-time capital funding there.
> 
> On the plus side, there is money to properly study extending Northstar to St. Cloud. If the study is positive, I'd expect to see some traction on that fairly quickly since there's a lot more advocacy around that currently than either a Duluth train or a second daily train to Chicago.
> 
> https://twitter.com/Stowydad/status/1131243458134454273


Extending the North Star to St Cloud would probably really help that trains performance.


----------

