# South Dakota Passenger Rail



## dlagrua

This post is a about the possibility of passenger rail service in South Dakota. Having passenger service there is a long shot but IMO there is a demand. The state currently owns railroad lines that run across the state from the Eastern border at Sioux Falls to Kadoka in the West. The last part of the railroad line from Kadoka to Rapid City ( SD largest city) for 98.5 miles is no longer there but the ROW has been rail banked by the state.

Why would passenger rail be important there? Rapid City is very close to Mt Rushmore and that is a prime tourist area that brings millions of visitors there every year.. Passenger rail service from Sioux City to Rapid City would connect two of South Dakotas largest cities. Would not some visitors take the train? Lets also not rule out a motorcycle combo train to Sturgis?

How could this happen? Well it would not be by Amtrak. If you look at the railroad lines, they are owned by the state and the routes run by small freight railroads. The state would need to upgrade the line, replace the missing track to Rapid City and contract out the passenger service.

Why might this happen in the future? South Dakota receives generous federal funding. They own most of the tracks.

It would be great for tourism and perhaps provide a boom for business. It sure would be nice to get to Mt Rushmore by rail. Fifty years back the class 1's served Rapid City S.D. so maybe its time to at least look at bringing service back again.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

That would be pretty cool to have passenger trains there.

By the line do you mean from Sioux Falls southeast to Canton, then west to Kadoka, running south of Pierre? It would be nice to get passenger rail to Pierre (State capital of South Dakota).

And once you get to Rapid City, where would the train go next? Would it go south through Nebraska into Colorado to connect with CZ? Because I don't see any connecting rails to the Empire Builder, and it would be nice to get to Mt. Rushmore from the west rather than going to Sioux City, then north to Sioux Falls then back west to Rapid City.

Edit: I just researched some with the books I have. The track from Canton SD through Kadoka to Rapid City SD was formerly The Milwaukee Road, and west of Mitchell SD it is now all out of service, and west of Kadoka it's abandoned (as OP said).

The track from Rapid City SD south to Dakota Jct. NE west to Crawford NE was owned by C&NW, so I'm guessing it's UP trackage now. Track from Crawford NE thru Alliance NE, Sidney NE, down to Fort Morgan CO is all BNSF now, and I predict from Google Earth that part of that BNSF track is busy with coal trains from Wyoming (just guessing). That's all I know.

Does anyone know anything else?


----------



## dlagrua

At one time So Dakota was served by the Great Northern , the Chicago and North Western that served the capitol central area to Rapid City and the Milwaukee Road that went across the state in a more direct southern route to Rapid City. There were routes that continued the lines further.

All provided passenger service until around 1969. The states rail lines were nearly comp!etely abandoned by 1980 and the state purchased them to save about 50% of them. Passenger rail was there before and if there is a will it could be there again. So Dakota is now a state without passenger rail and IMO if the state stepped in the people would enjoy passenger trains again.


----------



## railiner

Passenger train in South Dakota?

Well....there's this... http://www.1880train.com/index.html  It was a former CB&Q branchline...

The best train to cross SD had to be the MILW Olympian Hiawatha, while it lasted...

I would think the most likely route to receive passenger service, would be a train on the "mid-continent route"....Winnipeg-Fargo-Sioux Falls-Sioux City-Omaha-Kansas City-and points South.... line. It would just serve a sliver of SD....


----------



## jphjaxfl

Passenger Train Service to South Dakota ended before most other states. The Dakota 400 of the C&NW had been cutback to Mankato, MN by the early 1960s. The Olympian Hiawatha lasted as a local train from Minneapolis to Aberdeen until later in the 1960s. A branch of Milkwaukee Road's Arrow from Chicago to Omaha that ran from Chicago to Sioux City and Sioux Falls ended in the mid 60s when RPOs were discontinued, My great Uncle lived in Huron South Dakota where the C&NW ran a local to Omaha that was discontinued in the mid 1950s. By A day on May 1, 1971, the closest train to South Dakota was Illinois Central's Hawkeye that ran coach only from Chicago to Sioux City, IA. The Hawkeye once had a branch to Sioux Falls. Every time a passenger train to South Dakota was discontinued, the ICC conducted a "Train Off" hearing where citizens could appear and protest the trains discontinuance. In South Dakota, very few citizens came to these hearings so train service was not important to those in South Dakota. The state has bought and banked rail lines to preserve freight railroads in case of future industrial expansion in South Dakota. Folks in South Dakota don't miss passenger trains because they have been gone so long. Is there a rail line from Fargo to Sioux Falls? In the 1970s when I was stationed at Grand Forks AFB, North Dakota, North Central Airlines operated 2 flights per day from Grand Forks to Fargo to Watertown,SD to Brookings, SD to Sioux Falls, SD to Sioux City, IA to Wapeton, NE to Omaha. Even those are long gone.


----------



## jis

Let's face it.... Road is King in that part of the country. No one gives two hoots about passenger rail.  unless it runs on rickety tracks using pre-historic equipment for a few miles for the amusement of tourists.


----------



## JayPea

railiner said:


> Passenger train in South Dakota?
> 
> Well....there's this... http://www.1880train.com/index.html  It was a former CB&Q branchline...


I took a road trip to Mt. Rushmore last year and as part of the fun rode the 1880 train. I can now say I've ridden the rails in South Dakota.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Didn't South Dakota receive twenty million dollars in Federal Amtrak related funds and used all or most of that amount for state aircraft/airport costs?


----------



## Eric S

Devil's Advocate said:


> Didn't South Dakota receive twenty million dollars in Federal Amtrak related funds and used all or most of that amount for state aircraft/airport costs?


Yes, it appears that it did - see https://www.amtrakoig.gov/sites/default/files/reports/inv112709tra97funds.pdf

Each of the (then-) six states that did not have Amtrak service in 1997 received approx $23 million, ostensibly for intercity bus or intercity rail service. As I recall Maine used its portion to help establish Downeaster service and Oklahoma used its portion to set up Heartland Flyer service. Not sure about Alaska, Hawaii, and Wyoming.


----------



## fairviewroad

Mt. Rushmore and the Black Hills are certainly a big draw, but you really need a car to fully experience the area. I mean, I guess if you had a train running from Chicago to Rapid City (or something like that) then you could pair that with robust rental car/motorcoach tour options, well...maybe it could work. But it's a highly seasonal tourist market. I think this firmly in the realm of fantasy-land. The population just isn't there.


----------



## dlagrua

So. Dakota has three Important/Major cities; Sioux Falls. Pierre, and Rapid City. I do not believe that Amtrak would undertake restoring the Milwaukee Road or C&NW LD routes that would serve these cities, but if you examine where these cities are, its Eastern edge, Central and Western edge. That's where the population centers lie. Then consider Mt Rushmore draws 2 1/2 million visitors alone and the Rapid City/ Deadwood Black Hills area is loaded with tourist attractions and National Parks. The only way that passenger rail could happen (and I agree that its a long shot) is for intercity rail but at this point, it is not even being discussed. Just goes to show how far our passenger rail network has fallen.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Denver to Rapid City? I believe those tracks are still operating.

And then Omaha - Sioux City - Sioux Falls - somewhere might be possible.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

At some point Minnesota had dreams of a passenger rail system reaching to Winnipeg, Des Moines, Sioux City and Omaha, and yes, Sioux Falls, South Dakota.

Those routes are in Phase 2.

Alas, nothing has actually been done about Phase 1.

Of course, if they did anything, how would they get needed equipment? Not from Amtrak. Maybe from Nippon Sharyo ...

(Sorry, I had the map, but the image is not allowed on this site.)


----------



## Anderson

Alaska likely used the funds for the Alaska Railroad (which has not-insignificant passenger service which actually does, generally, make money...on direct costs per their report the margin is pretty fat, but that's also excluding a share of G&A, marketing, etc.).

Hawaii? Hell if I know.


----------



## dlagrua

After researching this further; there was a Milwaukee Road passenger train called the Sioux that ran East to West across Southern South Dakota on its mainline. The Sioux originated at CUS and was a full service train on a long 990 mile route. The train would stop at many small towns along the route in SD (think US mail) Mitchell, Presho, Murdo, Belvidere, Kadoka, Interior Scenic and Rapid City. When the Milwaukee Road went bust the entire mainline was abandoned for both freight and passenger service and left to decay. The state stepped in, purchased the line and a new freight railroad called the Dakota Southern was formed. They were able to lease the tracks. With state and federal grants, the tracks were rebuilt and the Dakota Southern RR currently runs nearly half way across South Dakota to Presho within 30 miles of Murdo. It will be several more years before the railroad can get enough funds to repair the tracks to Kadoka. At that point they are about 50 miles from Rapid City. The tracks are gone West of Kadoka (through the Badlands) and maybe one day if there is demand rail will be on that right of way as well. All this is great for the mining, grain and seed industry but after passenger service ceased, many small towns along the mainline became ghost towns. The bottom line is that there is great potential for expanding freight RR service in South Dakota but I see little demand for passenger service.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Ideally if you can reroute the Empire Builder west of Minneapolis to run closer to Mount Rushmore, Yellowstone, and Boise before hitting Spokane rather than the route it takes now it would serve more purpose.

The North Coast Hiawatha (http://timetables.org/full.php?group=19790429&item=0043) was probably better than the EB in that aspect. It served Livingston and the schedule said "(Yellowstone)". I don't know how close that was to Yellowstone, it would have to be way closer than the EB gets to Yellowstone now.

The Pioneer was probably cheaper to run since you'd only have to run it from DEN-SEA and you'd still be serving Boise which you aren't serving now but you wouldn't be serving Spokane anymore if you lost the EB (I'm sure Amtrak would still have CHI-MSP service even if they dropped the EB, not sure about SPK).

I don't know if Amtrak has ever served South Dakota. As for Amtrak serving Chicago-Seattle/Portland, personally I could care less about going there. But if you do there are tourist attractions (Yellowstone and Mount Rushmore) and Boise that are unserved by Amtrak. Can we serve there instead of the current EB route while still serving MSP and SPK?


----------



## jebr

Why are we cutting the Builder or rerouting a large portion of its route? It does well currently because of its route, and any reroute would almost certainly result in a drop in ridership.

What's the track speed on the southerly route? Currently the Builder runs mainly on BNSF mainline, which allows a fairly fast timetable. Given that the current competition is a slower US highway where snow can make travel treacherous every now and then, it seems odd to reroute it to compete against 80mph Interstate traffic.

Sent from my Moto G (4) using Tapatalk


----------



## jis

dlagrua said:


> This post is a about the possibility of passenger rail service in South Dakota. Having passenger service there is a long shot but IMO there is a demand. The state currently owns railroad lines that run across the state from the Eastern border at Sioux Falls to Kadoka in the West. The last part of the railroad line from Kadoka to Rapid City ( SD largest city) for 98.5 miles is no longer there but the ROW has been rail banked by the state.
> 
> Why would passenger rail be important there? Rapid City is very close to Mt Rushmore and that is a prime tourist area that brings millions of visitors there every year.. Passenger rail service from Sioux City to Rapid City would connect two of South Dakotas largest cities. Would not some visitors take the train? Lets also not rule out a motorcycle combo train to Sturgis?
> 
> How could this happen? Well it would not be by Amtrak. If you look at the railroad lines, they are owned by the state and the routes run by small freight railroads. The state would need to upgrade the line, replace the missing track to Rapid City and contract out the passenger service.
> 
> Why might this happen in the future? South Dakota receives generous federal funding. They own most of the tracks.
> 
> It would be great for tourism and perhaps provide a boom for business. It sure would be nice to get to Mt Rushmore by rail. Fifty years back the class 1's served Rapid City S.D. so maybe its time to at least look at bringing service back again.


I doubt that Kadoka a to Rapid City would ever be rebuilt. Rapid City has already got rail access via DME (ex-CNW route) from Pierre. This is even more so because beyond Rapid City to the west it goes to nowhere - well, after Belle Fourche it just goes to a mine and ends there

The trans-South Dakota main route was ex-MILW route in the north, through Aberdeen and Mobridge, which is currently an active BNSF route as far as I can tell.

The other trans-South Dakota route is through Pierre and Rapid City to the south to Nebraska, which is currently an active DME route.



jebr said:


> Why are we cutting the Builder or rerouting a large portion of its route? It does well currently because of its route, and any reroute would almost certainly result in a drop in ridership.
> 
> What's the track speed on the southerly route? Currently the Builder runs mainly on BNSF mainline, which allows a fairly fast timetable. Given that the current competition is a slower US highway where snow can make travel treacherous every now and then, it seems odd to reroute it to compete against 80mph Interstate traffic.


As usual, just like you need to kill the Cardinal to get a service from Philly to Chicago via Pittsburgh, you similarly need to kill the Empire Builder to restore service on the Northern Pacific (now Montana Rail Link) route.






There has been a study to restore what used to be the Amtrak North Coast Hiawatha. The cost estimate as usual is high. It would serve Livingston which is the norther gateway to Yellowstone. But it would not serve Butte since it is now unreachable from the east as service through Homestake Pass is not available any more. It will run through Helena instead, through Mullens Pass, which is the current active MRL route towards Missoula and on to Spokane.

In any case Montana will be very upset if anyone tries to discontinue the Empire builder, as we have seen happen repeatedly. They were not happy when it was briefly downgraded to three times a week either. So it is not going to happen, just like Cardinal is not going away either.





BTW, I would strongly recommend that people actually look at rail maps to verify what is still around today, before starting to build castles in the air.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> In any case Montana will be very upset if anyone tries to discontinue the Empire builder, as we have seen happen repeatedly. They were not happy when it was briefly downgraded to three times a week either. So it is not going to happen, just like Cardinal is not going away either.


Right and us in PA were thrilled to lose the Broadway Limited. Of course we don't matter do we? It's only the tiny irrelevant states that matter to Amtrak and AU right?


----------



## jis

Bottom line is, when it was time for PA to walk upto the plate and bat for the Broadway/Three Rivers, they were caught snoozing in the dugout. And there was nothing that could get them out of their stupor. It is not like many of us, who are not even from PA did not try. The rest, as they say, is history.

in contrast, Montanans have always been exceedingly vocal about their train as has Minnesota and North Dakota, and have even been willing to put their pockets where their mouth is, when push came to shove.

When PA has bothered to step upto the plate they have done fine in retaining and/or enhancing service.

But then again, this has nothing to do with South Dakota. The core point is there is absolutely no justification for rerouting the Empire Builder from its current route. Even when the NCH ran, the EB was the better performer, mainly because it serves an area that is not well served by the interstate road network. Only the basic two lane undivided Hwy 2 up there.

And restoring the NCH will bring no service to South Dakota anyway.


----------



## JayPea

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case Montana will be very upset if anyone tries to discontinue the Empire builder, as we have seen happen repeatedly. They were not happy when it was briefly downgraded to three times a week either. So it is not going to happen, just like Cardinal is not going away either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and us in PA were thrilled to lose the Broadway Limited. Of course we don't matter do we? It's only the tiny irrelevant states that matter to Amtrak and AU right?
Click to expand...

Folks in Montana and North Dakota will beg to differ with you about their states being irrelevant. You might get a better audience here with some of your proposals if you weren't so insulting about it.


----------



## A Voice

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case Montana will be very upset if anyone tries to discontinue the Empire builder, as we have seen happen repeatedly. They were not happy when it was briefly downgraded to three times a week either. So it is not going to happen, just like Cardinal is not going away either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and us in PA were thrilled to lose the Broadway Limited. Of course we don't matter do we? It's only the tiny irrelevant states that matter to Amtrak and AU right?
Click to expand...

Philadelphia sees more trains in an hour than states such as West Virginia - which you imply carries greater importance - have in a week. Montana - one of the geographically larger states - is served by a single long-distance route; Pennsylvania has corridor, commuter, and long-distance train service, with four major routes between the Northeast and points west.

Yet, by not removing all service from several states just so Philadelphia can have a fifth ("one seat") way to Chicago, you conclude Pennsylvania doesn't matter. Seriously?


----------



## Green Maned Lion

As long as trains are not running hourly through the great city of Reading, I tend to agree with him.

Or as Cato the Elder would say, Cathargo delende est!


----------



## Thirdrail7

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> In any case Montana will be very upset if anyone tries to discontinue the Empire builder, as we have seen happen repeatedly. They were not happy when it was briefly downgraded to three times a week either. So it is not going to happen, just like Cardinal is not going away either.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Right and us in PA were thrilled to lose the Broadway Limited. Of course we don't matter do we? It's only the tiny irrelevant states that matter to Amtrak and AU right?
Click to expand...


Montana and South Dakota are both bigger than Pennsylvania so perhaps they deserve a train more than your small state.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Even when the NCH ran, the EB was the better performer, mainly because it serves an area that is not well served by the interstate road network. Only the basic two lane undivided Hwy 2 up there.


But those 2 lane roads up in the Hi-line area have 70 mph speed limits!



Kind of like Texas with snow. I once rode the EB to havre, rented a car, and then drove to Great Falls and Yellowstone.Drove 70 mph on the 2 lane highway to Great Falls, except when I had some blowing snow.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

In PA they have a posted limit of 70, a legal limit of 76, and an unofficial tolerance of 80-85. And sometimes snow, too.


----------



## MARC Rider

Green Maned Lion said:


> In PA they have a posted limit of 70, a legal limit of 76, and an unofficial tolerance of 80-85. And sometimes snow, too.


That's just on the Turnpike. All the 2-lane roads have a 55 mph limit max (and a good thing, too, given the curves and hills and cross traffic that you can't see until the last minute.) And I-70 from the Maryland line to Breezewood is 55 mph, for some obscure reason, it doesn't seem to be any different from any other interstate in PA.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

thats not true


----------



## Windtimber

Initial points:

1. I'm brand new here.

2. As far as I can tell I'm the only poster on this particular thread who is from South Dakota.

3. I personally haven't ridden on Amtrak in 40 years, the last trip being from Fargo - that's about 4 1/2 hours north of here - to Seattle and back.

4. Why a 40 year hiatus? Passenger service in South Dakota ended some 55 years ago AND Amtrak is 4 1/2 hours north of here.

I appreciate the early posters' suggestions about the positive aspects of bringing passenger rail in South Dakota. It's a long ways to anyplace, from anyplace, out here. Business people spend hours on the road between Mitchell, Rapid City, Pierre, Aberdeen, Huron, Watertown, Brookings, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, and Yankton. Just to name the bigger - relatively speaking - cities in the state. Even at 80 mph interstate speed - and a number of the aforementioned places are not on the interstate - the windshield time is a colossal waste of resources. Air service is darn near non-existent in places other than Sioux Falls and Rapid City.

I have no answer to the initial posters suggestion/question. But I do believe that intercity, if not interstate, passenger rail would be a godsend. Granted, given our sparse population, much of the year there wouldn't be large numbers of people filling a commuter train, but a Budd car would probably fill up without any trouble.

Considering it's snowing again, the wind is coming up, and the temperature is about +10 with a low tonight near 0, intercity travel without worrying about icy roads, oncoming traffic, and the ability to sit and read or work a laptop would be outstanding!


----------



## railiner

Windtimber said:


> Initial points:
> 
> 1. I'm brand new here.
> 
> 2. As far as I can tell I'm the only poster on this particular thread who is from South Dakota.
> 
> 3. I personally haven't ridden on Amtrak in 40 years, the last trip being from Fargo - that's about 4 1/2 hours north of here - to Seattle and back.
> 
> 4. Why a 40 year hiatus? Passenger service in South Dakota ended some 55 years ago AND Amtrak is 4 1/2 hours north of here.
> 
> I appreciate the early posters' suggestions about the positive aspects of bringing passenger rail in South Dakota. It's a long ways to anyplace, from anyplace, out here. Business people spend hours on the road between Mitchell, Rapid City, Pierre, Aberdeen, Huron, Watertown, Brookings, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, and Yankton. Just to name the bigger - relatively speaking - cities in the state. Even at 80 mph interstate speed - and a number of the aforementioned places are not on the interstate - the windshield time is a colossal waste of resources. Air service is darn near non-existent in places other than Sioux Falls and Rapid City.
> 
> I have no answer to the initial posters suggestion/question. But I do believe that intercity, if not interstate, passenger rail would be a godsend. Granted, given our sparse population, much of the year there wouldn't be large numbers of people filling a commuter train, but a Budd car would probably fill up without any trouble.
> 
> Considering it's snowing again, the wind is coming up, and the temperature is about +10 with a low tonight near 0, intercity travel without worrying about icy roads, oncoming traffic, and the ability to sit and read or work a laptop would be outstanding!


Welcome to AU!

Always nice to see new member's.....

While it would be nice to have passenger service in South Dakota, and many other places, as well...unfortunately, .the reality is that it is not very likely to happen, in a long time to come, as there just aren't the numbers to justify it, and SD is no longer on a through transcontinental route, since the demise of the Milwaukee Road.....


----------



## Palmetto

MARC Rider said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even when the NCH ran, the EB was the better performer, mainly because it serves an area that is not well served by the interstate road network. Only the basic two lane undivided Hwy 2 up there.
> 
> 
> 
> But those 2 lane roads up in the Hi-line area have 70 mph speed limits!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kind of like Texas with snow. I once rode the EB to havre, rented a car, and then drove to Great Falls and Yellowstone.Drove 70 mph on the 2 lane highway to Great Falls, except when I had some blowing snow.
Click to expand...

You can legally do 75 on some rural roads where I live in Texas. Amazing.


----------



## Bob Dylan

In West Texas, somewhat like South Dakota in its remoteness( we do have the Sunset Ltd. 3 times a week between San Antonio and LA)you can drive 85mph, and also on a Toll Road here in Austin the Speed limit is 80!!

As for South Dakota, your politicians will have to fund any kind of rail service, which doesn't seem likely based on who you have in office and the small population.

Welcome to AU however and consider a trip on the California Zephyr between Chicago and the Bay Area since you've been on the Builder!


----------



## dlagrua

Windtimber said:


> Initial points:
> 
> 1. I'm brand new here.
> 
> 2. As far as I can tell I'm the only poster on this particular thread who is from South Dakota.
> 
> 3. I personally haven't ridden on Amtrak in 40 years, the last trip being from Fargo - that's about 4 1/2 hours north of here - to Seattle and back.
> 
> 4. Why a 40 year hiatus? Passenger service in South Dakota ended some 55 years ago AND Amtrak is 4 1/2 hours north of here.
> 
> I appreciate the early posters' suggestions about the positive aspects of bringing passenger rail in South Dakota. It's a long ways to anyplace, from anyplace, out here. Business people spend hours on the road between Mitchell, Rapid City, Pierre, Aberdeen, Huron, Watertown, Brookings, Sioux Falls, Vermillion, and Yankton. Just to name the bigger - relatively speaking - cities in the state. Even at 80 mph interstate speed - and a number of the aforementioned places are not on the interstate - the windshield time is a colossal waste of resources. Air service is darn near non-existent in places other than Sioux Falls and Rapid City.
> 
> I have no answer to the initial posters suggestion/question. But I do believe that intercity, if not interstate, passenger rail would be a godsend. Granted, given our sparse population, much of the year there wouldn't be large numbers of people filling a commuter train, but a Budd car would probably fill up without any trouble.
> 
> Considering it's snowing again, the wind is coming up, and the temperature is about +10 with a low tonight near 0, intercity travel without worrying about icy roads, oncoming traffic, and the ability to sit and read or work a laptop would be outstanding!


As one who has spent time in South Dakota (going there again in May) I saw firsthand the effects of the closing of the Milwaukee Road Mainline that ran from near Sioux Falls across the state to Rapid City. As you may know the route went West parallel to Rt 90 to Kadoka then continued around the badlands through Interior and Scenic to Rapid City. The closing of this line devastated farms, mines and small towns along its route. Farmers and Ranchers lost a way to get their produce to market and towns became ghost towns. Until Rt 90 was built there was little in the way of transportation. The good news is that with the states help, the Dakota Southern RR is working its way West on that old mainline bringing new hope to the grain and seed industries. The track refurbishment is nearly halfway across the state at Presho. They hope to be as far as Murdo this year and eventually to Kadoka where the tracks now end.. I see great hope for another railroad across the southern portion of the state, an agricultural resurgence there, but I believe passenger rail is still far off. IMO, the only cities that could support passenger rail are Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Pierre. We would love to hop on an Amtrak train in Chicago and head West to Rapid City/the Black Hills but until the demand for passenger service returns it will be a long wait. The Milwaukee Road Sioux train stopped service in the 1950's. Many stations along the old main line still remain, and some have been re-purposed; a sad reminder of lost passenger trains in your state.


----------



## railiner

I believe the last passenger service that the Milwaukee ran across South Dakota was on the former route of their Olympian Hiawatha to the Pacific, which ran across the northern part of the state.

The last passenger service on that line was a stub from Minneapolis to Aberdeen, up until April of 1969.....


----------



## jis

dlagrua said:


> As one who has spent time in South Dakota (going there again in May) I saw firsthand the effects of the closing of the Milwaukee Road Mainline that ran from near Sioux Falls across the state to Rapid City. As you may know the route went West parallel to Rt 90 to Kadoka then continued around the badlands through Interior and Scenic to Rapid City. The closing of this line devastated farms, mines and small towns along its route. Farmers and Ranchers lost a way to get their produce to market and towns became ghost towns. Until Rt 90 was built there was little in the way of transportation. The good news is that with the states help, the Dakota Southern RR is working its way West on that old mainline bringing new hope to the grain and seed industries. The track refurbishment is nearly halfway across the state at Presho. They hope to be as far as Murdo this year and eventually to Kadoka where the tracks now end.. I see great hope for another railroad across the southern portion of the state, an agricultural resurgence there, but I believe passenger rail is still far off. IMO, the only cities that could support passenger rail are Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Pierre. We would love to hop on an Amtrak train in Chicago and head West to Rapid City/the Black Hills but until the demand for passenger service returns it will be a long wait. The Milwaukee Road Sioux train stopped service in the 1950's. Many stations along the old main line still remain, and some have been re-purposed; a sad reminder of lost passenger trains in your state.


 Rapid City was the terminal (i.e. the last) station on a MILW and CNW branch line. The ex-CNW Line still exists operated by DME. The MILW line has been abandoned. Beyond Rapid City there was a Fremont Elkton and Missouri Valley (FEMV) line to a mine north of Belle Fourche, This is the line one sees running along I-90 west of Rapid City today. It still operates under the short line DME (Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern) , The other line west was a Rapid City, Black Hills and Western Railway twisty turny line to M&B Junction, where it met a north-south running CBQ branch line. All of that is abandoned. So effectively there is no "main line" that went west of Rapid City. Only local lines.

The only other line from Rapid City is to the South, the ex FEMV currently DME Line to Chardonne, Nebraska.

As railner correctly points out above, the MILW Main Line ran across the North of the state, through Bristol, Aberdeen and Mobridge.

Strongly recommend that all interested take the trouble to crack open the Dakotas and Minnesota volume of the SPV Comprehensive Railroad Atlas of North America.


----------



## neroden

dlagrua said:


> IMO, the only cities that could support passenger rail are Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Pierre.


This sounds about right to me. Unfortunately we can't even get Iowa -- whose governments are much more supportive of passenger rail than South Dakota -- to support passenger service to Iowa City, which is a hop, skip, and jump from the end of the Moline line.
Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - Kansas City is a plausible line, but the political support appears to be beyond nonexistent and well into total hostility. If we can't even get Cleveland - Columbus due to anti-rail forces (and we can't), there's just no chance.


----------



## bretton88

neroden said:


> dlagrua said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, the only cities that could support passenger rail are Sioux Falls, Rapid City and Pierre.
> 
> 
> 
> This sounds about right to me. Unfortunately we can't even get Iowa -- whose governments are much more supportive of passenger rail than South Dakota -- to support passenger service to Iowa City, which is a hop, skip, and jump from the end of the Moline line.
> Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - Kansas City is a plausible line, but the political support appears to be beyond nonexistent and well into total hostility. If we can't even get Cleveland - Columbus due to anti-rail forces (and we can't), there's just no chance.
Click to expand...

Missouri is supportive of a KC to Omaha train via St Joseph, as it's in their state rail plan. Nebraska isn't against the idea, but there's no leadership on the ground to push the idea. The only weird part is a good chunk of the routing would be in Iowa, who has zero interest in this route (only stop in Iowa would be Sioux City) and definitely wouldn't be willing to fund it. I have no idea what SD thinks about it.
Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk


----------



## jis

South Dakota does not connect the two concepts "passenger" and "rail" together in any of their transportation planning. All their rail planning and funding is about freight.

South Dakota has a comprehensive state rail plan in two volumes. The word "passenger" does not appear even once in the two volumes. The word "transit" appears only in the context of transit in cities and towns and seemingly refers to road based transport, basically to provide the context within which their "multi-modal" transport plan operates wherein rail has not much to do with carrying passengers..


----------



## railgeekteen

A pipe dream I have is Chicago-Minneapolis-Pierre-Rapid City-Cheyenne-Ogden-Salt Lake City-Emeryville train. Would restore service to both of the 48 contiguous states without Amtrak.


----------



## Bob Dylan

All the Thousands of people in South Dakota and Wyoming definitely deserve to have Passenger Rail IF they Pay for it!


----------



## JayPea

Bob Dylan said:


> All the Thousands of people in South Dakota and Wyoming definitely deserve to have Passenger Rail IF they Pay for it!


This.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

This comes back to my old argument. If South Dakota and Wyoming want rail service they are expected to pay for it. But North Dakota and Montana get free service. Is that fair? The real fair thing would be all states would get federally funded rail service but we don't have the equipment for it. Plus there are other areas in the country that also don't have rail service as well.


----------



## jis

Historical facts and continuation of things that already existed is relevant in this discussion.

For example the fact that you have US citizenship whereas someone born in Nigeria does not has more to do with the historical accident that you were born in the US than anything to do with fairness, being more deserving or any other such.



The Empire Builder is there because it was part of the original system that has survived, more than anything else. There is nothing in South Dakota because there was nothing there when Amtrak was created. Which makes it one step further removed than those places that lost service at the creation of Amtrak. Nothing to do with fairness or otherwise. All historical accidents.


----------



## ParanoidAndroid

Life isn't always fair.


----------



## M_Clark

First . I want to say I like this idea of bringing passenger rail service to South Dakota. I have seen several plans to bring passenger rail back to South Dakota, and there are some huge benefits. There are some hurdles that need to be addressed before any of this can happen. The big one, being money.

The majority of the rails are in horrible condition, in some cases unsafe. Most of the rail will need to be ripped out and the road bed rebuilt. A conservative estimate would be around $1,000,000 per mile. The rails west of Pierre are the worst. Mainly because the underlying soil is like gumbo. Other places are not as bad, however they still need to be rebuilt before any passenger service can be put in to operation. Dakota, Minnesota and Eastern (DM&E) Started the process around Huron area. There is still a long way to go

Once the rails are upgraded, freight companies will be able to move more product, faster, safer and more efficiently. Unless we have a oil boom, the return on their investment doesn’t really just justify the cost of the upgrades. Passenger service really isn’t a great money maker, it is at best a loss leader.

If we can get over the money issue, I can see some great benefits for South Dakota.

1. Several years ago the wheel tax and gas tax was increased to help pay for highway repairs. The road are getting fixed. It make sense for the state to protect the investment that is being made on the roads by moving as much of the traffic as possible off the pavement to the rails. Making the highway last a bit longer.

2. This is South Dakota, and it snows, a lot and the wind blows, a lot. There are seasoned citizens living in rural areas who won’t drive to Denver, Omaha, Sioux Falls or any other city in the winter because the roads can be just down right nasty. Often missing medical appointments. Having rail service would go a long way get these people to the places they need to be.

3. South Dakota has some of the poorest counties in the nation. Not surprising and all these counties are on the Indian reservations One of the things the reservations is missing is access. In some case the only way in or out is a two lane highway, that can easily be blocked by snow and snow drifts. Having access to passenger service and less than a car load freight service could go a long way in helping these reservations.

4. There are number of events in South Dakota that parking is a issue. Like the State Fair Having special train to service to these events would help ease the parking hassle and be safer overall.

There are a number of other benefits that I haven’t listed.

Getting this done isn’t going to be just a single company, It is going to take the cooperative effort of all the companies, State of South Dakota and surrounding states, the Federal government and all the communities. They are going to have to be sold on the idea. It is not going to be easy.

Is the effort worth it?


----------



## Bob Dylan

You just described every State in the US that currently has Amtrak Service as well as other Rail!

As you said,Money is the Key ingredient, where is it coming from??


----------



## Anthony V

I believe South Dakota's best hope for restoring passenger rail service would be a train running from Omaha to Sioux Falls via Sioux City, timed to connect with the California Zephyr. However, I don't see this happening anytime soon because the states of Iowa and South Dakota would have to subsidize it due to PRIIA 2008. South Dakota has never shown an interest in subsidizing passenger rail. Back in the 1990's when federal money to help bring rail service to states lacking Amtrak service at the time was given to those states (the same source of funds used by Oklahoma to set up the Heartland Flyer, and Maine to set up the Downeaster), South Dakota used that money for highway projects instead.


----------



## neroden

In the spirit of promoting basic economic principles of railroading, I will say that any service to South Dakota should start with service to Sioux Falls, the largest city -- and frankly the only one worthy of service at all.  All the other cities in SD are smaller than Ithaca, NY, so give us service first.  

Agreed that Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls would make sense, and it's pretty much the only route which does.


----------



## dogbert617

jis said:


> Let's face it.... Road is King in that part of the country. No one gives two hoots about passenger rail.  unless it runs on rickety tracks using pre-historic equipment for a few miles for the amusement of tourists.



I fear that likely may be the case, for SD. And since for the western part of the state, the tracks would have to be restored between Kadoka-Rapid City, to even get freight service restarted to this area, let alone a slimmer chance of passenger rail service. At least DME is trying to improve the existing tracks east of Kadoka, so maybe someday freight will return west of there if the tracks are rebuilt west of Kadoka?

Does make me wonder on a side note, if the tracks are still in place east of Aberdeen, SD? Since train service between there and either St. Paul or Minneapolis (probably the former makes more sense, as it'd directly connect to Amtrak, although at least both places have light rail), would help people up there a lot. Maybe it'd also help in say, like Mankato or Willmar? I forget which of those 2 cities(or both?), the old Milwaukee Road train that served Aberdeen went through on the way to Twin Cities.



jis said:


> Desert Wind and Pioneer were not part of the original Amtrak system. Nor was Sunset East or even the Lake Shore Limited. Then again several of the original system trains are gone too, like the Broadway, the National and the Lone Star.





neroden said:


> In the spirit of promoting basic economic principles of railroading, I will say that any service to South Dakota should start with service to Sioux Falls, the largest city -- and frankly the only one worthy of service at all. All the other cities in SD are smaller than Ithaca, NY, so give us service first.
> 
> Agreed that Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls would make sense, and it's pretty much the only route which does.



Of course on a side note, it'd be great if other train routes were considered as well. I.e. Quad Cities-Iowa City-Desert Moines-Omaha, with possible stops in the middle on the way (Cedar Falls, Waterloo? forget all the IA cities and towns that'd be in the middle of such a route). And as much as I love the idea of an Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls train, it'd be a long shot to see occur, as all 3 states more than likely would have to unanimously agree on such a train being funded(as I suspect it'd fall under the threshold of 700-750 miles, requiring state support), and entering Amtrak service.

Not sure if that'd ever occur with probably I worry a lot of anti-rail politicians in these states, but you never know.


----------



## jebr

dogbert617 said:


> Does make me wonder on a side note, if the tracks are still in place east of Aberdeen, SD? Since train service between there and either St. Paul or Minneapolis (probably the former makes more sense, as it'd directly connect to Amtrak, although at least both places have light rail), would help people up there a lot. Maybe it'd also help in say, like Mankato or Willmar? I forget which of those 2 cities(or both?), the old Milwaukee Road train that served Aberdeen went through on the way to Twin Cities.



Likely Willmar, although neither appears to be on the true "direct" route (there's a couple of cutoffs/crossings to get to Benson from Aberdeen.) I think it's all still technically serviceable/in use, but not 100% sure on that. The route would be a pretty weak one overall, though, both from the Minnesota side and the South Dakota side.

It seems very unlikely that a cross-South Dakota train will come to fruition anytime soon, even with a very friendly legislative environment. What's more likely is that some sort of Twin Cities - Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - etc. train would start up. I could see some sort of Denver - Rapid City train getting traction, though the lack of a good current route makes it pretty unlikely even in the medium-to-long term. Still, I see that as more likely than a cross-state train, simply because there's more population to pull from on either of those routings.


----------



## Siegmund

I've had a lingering dream that someday an Amtrak reauthorization act would contain a provision mandating that the network serve all 48 states (or even that some network enhancement initiation be required to improve service to all 48 states - that way Idaho doesn't get off the hook just because the Builder stops in Sandpoint.)

South Dakota is definitely the hardest state to fill that bill, at least with anything other than a short-distance service that barely nicks the edge of the state.

I've spent time turning over exotic solutions for MT, WY, and ID before -- imagining a politician trying to fulfil a mandate to add service to every state with as few trains as possible, and doing something like running a Chicago-Seattle train Denver - Casper - Thermopolis - Laurel - then west or Denver - Cheyenne - Pocatello - Silver Bow then west, rather than restoring both the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha. But short of upgrading the ex-Milwaukee mainline through Aberdeen (almost all of it still exists, but it's no speedway) SD doesn't have many options.


----------



## dogbert617

Siegmund said:


> I've had a lingering dream that someday an Amtrak reauthorization act would contain a provision mandating that the network serve all 48 states (or even that some network enhancement initiation be required to improve service to all 48 states - that way Idaho doesn't get off the hook just because the Builder stops in Sandpoint.)
> 
> South Dakota is definitely the hardest state to fill that bill, at least with anything other than a short-distance service that barely nicks the edge of the state.
> 
> I've spent time turning over exotic solutions for MT, WY, and ID before -- imagining a politician trying to fulfil a mandate to add service to every state with as few trains as possible, and doing something like running a Chicago-Seattle train Denver - Casper - Thermopolis - Laurel - then west or Denver - Cheyenne - Pocatello - Silver Bow then west, rather than restoring both the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha. But short of upgrading the ex-Milwaukee mainline through Aberdeen (almost all of it still exists, but it's no speedway) SD doesn't have many options.



Like what another poster said, a train that'd have stops like Omaha-Sioux City-Sioux Falls seems like the best way to bring service back. Or something like the train Milwaukee Road used to run between Aberdeen-Minneapolis, and wouldn't be totally bad to restore since Aberdeen as I recall is the biggest populated city in SD outside of Rapid City and Sioux Falls. And of course, with the big population base in the greater Twin Cities/St. Paul/Minneapolis area, wouldn't be bad to restore.

To expand on that idea of a Omaha-Sioux-City-Sioux Falls train, I'd propose that would run further north, like say to have a stop in Brookings and at least north to Fargo, to connect with the Empire Builder. Of course there's still that annoying problem about Fargo having o-dark-thirty arrival times for the EB, but it's a start of an idea to talk about. And of course, having a second Amtrak train run the EB route, a la what has been proposed between Chicago and Saint Paul, would resolve a lot of the odd running time issues with this train. Just think if say a 2nd train could run, say between St. Paul and Minot(if not also to Williston?) that was 10-12 hours apart from the regular EB schedule, that'd resolve a lot of the o-dark-thirty arrival time complaints in Fargo and Grand Forks!


----------



## dogbert617

jebr said:


> Likely Willmar, although neither appears to be on the true "direct" route (there's a couple of cutoffs/crossings to get to Benson from Aberdeen.) I think it's all still technically serviceable/in use, but not 100% sure on that. The route would be a pretty weak one overall, though, both from the Minnesota side and the South Dakota side.
> 
> It seems very unlikely that a cross-South Dakota train will come to fruition anytime soon, even with a very friendly legislative environment. What's more likely is that some sort of Twin Cities - Sioux Falls - Sioux City - Omaha - etc. train would start up. I could see some sort of Denver - Rapid City train getting traction, though the lack of a good current route makes it pretty unlikely even in the medium-to-long term. Still, I see that as more likely than a cross-state train, simply because there's more population to pull from on either of those routings.



Speaking of that, I am wondering now if the tracks still are in place west of Rapid City, that'd allow a train to run all the way to like Cheyenne or Denver? Another poster said the tracks between Kadoka to Rapid City had been removed, and that DME railroad was trying to restore the condition of the tracks east of Kadoka. Maybe in the meantime, at least some sort of Amtrak bus thruway connection or 2 could be established, running into the state of South Dakota. At least I remember reading there is bus service to Sioux Falls(and I think also Rapid City?), which is better than nothing.


----------



## Deni

A train that was Omaha-Sioux Falls-Sioux City-St. Paul that connected with the long hoped for Chicago-Quad Cities-Iowa City-Des Moines-Omaha train. That's what I'd like to see.


----------



## jis

dogbert617 said:


> Speaking of that, I am wondering now if the tracks still are in place west of Rapid City, that'd allow a train to run all the way to like Cheyenne or Denver? Another poster said the tracks between Kadoka to Rapid City had been removed, and that DME railroad was trying to restore the condition of the tracks east of Kadoka. Maybe in the meantime, at least some sort of Amtrak bus thruway connection or 2 could be established, running into the state of South Dakota. At least I remember reading there is bus service to Sioux Falls(and I think also Rapid City?), which is better than nothing.


I think all really need to crack open a rail map of South Dakota and Wyoming to get connected with realities first.

There never has been any significant line heading west from Rapid City. So no there isn't any line heading west even now. There has been and still is a line heading south to Nebraska.

I have no idea why people are bellyaching about the ex MILW line between Kadoka and Rapid City which has been gone for a while, when there is a perfectly active, currently in use, run by DME, ex-CNW line to Rapid City from Pierre SD. This line ends at some mines or something like that a little past Belle Fourche SD a little ways into Wyoming. I have driven along most of it on roads more or less parallel to it, when I was in Rapid City last. And BTW, it is DSRC that operates the ex-MILW line east of Kadoka now AFAICT. Don't know what they actually run on it, or if they run anything on it at present.

I think there is probability in the delta neighborhood of zero that there will be any Amtrak service that will make it to Rapid City. If it does Rapid City will be a terminating station, since there really is nowhere to go westwards or northwards for that matter, beyond it by rail.

Any plausible Amtrak Thruway bus to Rapid City would likely be a looong one from Fargo via Aberdeen and Pierre, or from the south could be an extension from Sioux Falls (after such a service is established) through Pierre. The other possibility is north from Denver via Cheyenne, but all of them will be quite long bus rides.


----------



## jebr

If Amtrak wanted to offer connecting bus service today, they could ticket on the existing Jefferson Lines schedule from Minneapolis to Rapid City (I think it goes all the way to Billings, actually.) The schedule wouldn't mesh at all (it departs Minneapolis at 6:45 AM,) but it'd tick a box to offer service. It'd be an 11 hour bus ride as well, but again, it'd tick the box with little/no outlay on Amtrak's side. (As a bit of a side tangent, I'd actually like to see Amtrak and Jefferson Lines through-ticket on the noon schedule from Minneapolis to Sioux Falls - there'd be enough padding to connect from 8 and to 7 while adding a fair amount of additional ticketable cities onto Amtrak's network.)


----------



## Eric S

I think Amtrak and Jefferson Lines did offer through-ticketing in the not-so-distant past to/from points in North Dakota and Montana, via a connection in Minot and/or Williston. I seem to recall the connection showing up on Amtrak timetables for a couple of years. A quick glance and the Jefferson Lines route map doesn't show such a route - maybe Jefferson Lines changed its route structure or maybe I'm just mistaken.


----------



## Matthew H Fish

In terms of the entire network (not about serving the population centers in South Dakota, but about improving the network in a way that serves South Dakota), the best route would probably be a North-West one, Dallas-Oklahoma City is already there, perhaps to be extended to Kansas, and then it could go through Omaha, Sioux Falls, and Fargo. 

These cities don't make a lot of sense on their own, but it would make a lot of sense in terms of the overall network, because someone in, say, Minnesota can get to Denver in a much more easy fashion than they currently can. Or someone in Iowa who wants to get to Oklahoma. It would, however, also serve three of the five largest cities in South Dakota.


----------



## Mark Meyer

Twin Cities to Sioux Falls is definitely a route that should be pursued, right after the extension of the second Chicago-Twin Cities train to Fargo or Grand Forks. Sioux Falls has a metro area of one-quarter of million people. An all-BNSF routing via Willmar is doable. Willmar is currently a bottleneck, but this should be fixed by 2021 with the much-needed "Willmar Wye" project: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/d8/projects/willmarwye/index.html

The route from the Twin Cities to Willmar goes right through downtown Minneapolis (unlike the current Empire Builder route), and is CTC as far west as Willmar. Willmar to Sioux City is not signaled, but has some power switches on sidings and is equipped with PTC. The track from Willmar to Garretson is good for the maximum of 49 MPH freight without any slower speeds anywhere. The 18 miles from Garretson to downtown Sioux Falls is good only for 25 MPH and would need to be upgraded. The route is 248 miles from St. Paul to Sioux Falls, a distance similar to Chicago to Quincy. Operation beyond Sioux Falls toward Sioux City over a combination of BNSF and DAIR would require upgrading of the entire route, including sidings. Operation beyond Sioux City to Omaha on UP would feature a circuitous approach to Omaha; In other words, Twin Cities to Omaha via Sioux Falls and or Sioux City likely could never be fast enough to draw sufficient ridership. Ideally, the best Twin Cities-Kansas City route continues to the ex-Rock Island via Des Moines where a connection could be made to Omaha. The best option for South Dakota would definitely be connecting Sioux Falls to Minneapolis/St. Paul.


----------



## Anthony V

Mark Meyer said:


> Twin Cities to Sioux Falls is definitely a route that should be pursued, right after the extension of the second Chicago-Twin Cities train to Fargo or Grand Forks. Sioux Falls has a metro area of one-quarter of million people. An all-BNSF routing via Willmar is doable. Willmar is currently a bottleneck, but this should be fixed by 2021 with the much-needed "Willmar Wye" project: https://www.dot.state.mn.us/d8/projects/willmarwye/index.html
> 
> The route from the Twin Cities to Willmar goes right through downtown Minneapolis (unlike the current Empire Builder route), and is CTC as far west as Willmar. Willmar to Sioux City is not signaled, but has some power switches on sidings and is equipped with PTC. The track from Willmar to Garretson is good for the maximum of 49 MPH freight without any slower speeds anywhere. The 18 miles from Garretson to downtown Sioux Falls is good only for 25 MPH and would need to be upgraded. The route is 248 miles from St. Paul to Sioux Falls, a distance similar to Chicago to Quincy. Operation beyond Sioux Falls toward Sioux City over a combination of BNSF and DAIR would require upgrading of the entire route, including sidings. Operation beyond Sioux City to Omaha on UP would feature a circuitous approach to Omaha; In other words, Twin Cities to Omaha via Sioux Falls and or Sioux City likely could never be fast enough to draw sufficient ridership. Ideally, the best Twin Cities-Kansas City route continues to the ex-Rock Island via Des Moines where a connection could be made to Omaha. The best option for South Dakota would definitely be connecting Sioux Falls to Minneapolis/St. Paul.


This is one potential route from the Twin Cities to Sioux Falls, but another potential route would take the train via Mankato, serving more population in the process. The route would run southwest from SPUD to Worthington, where it would turn more westerly to get to Sioux Falls. You can follow the routing on Google Maps to get an idea of the path of it. My questions are: In what kind of condition are the tracks on this routing, and who would be the host railroad(s) of this route?


----------



## Mark Meyer

A Twin Cities- Sioux Falls routing via Mankato would require much more infrastructure investment. Any train would need to originate somewhere in Minneapolis, and then go to St. Paul (via BNSF, not the current Amtrak route) then UP to Agate (Worthington) on a combination of CTC, ABS, and TWC. From Agate to Manley (where the line crosses BNSF's Marshall sub), it is owned by the Ellis and Eastern Railroad (one of many short line operators over the years since jettisoned by the C&NW), as it may be west of Manley outside Sioux Falls, but the line is basically out of service and has been for years. Expect the entire Worthington/Agate to Sioux Falls (61 miles) to be rebuilt from the ground up, prohibitively more expensive than the route via Willmar.


----------



## dgvrengineer

I rode a BNSF special from Lincoln to Sioux City, Sioux Falls, Marshall, Wilmar and St Paul several years ago. The track is all in great shape. It is signaled as stated above by Mark Meyer. But to get to Sioux Falls, you have to back in from Garretson. That took forever! The former Milwaukee route from the south is in bad shape and I'm not sure it is all in service. Probably have to run UP from Omaha to Sioux City as BNSF doesn't have a direct route. UP has upgraded the line from the Twin Cities to Worthington. I heard to 40mph. If so that is class 3 track which allows 60 for passenger trains. I do not think the line is signaled past Mankato. As stated by Mark Meyer, the line from Worthington to Sioux Falls is in very bad shape. They abandoned their track into Sioux Falls and now make a connection with BNSF to access Sioux Falls.


----------



## jebr

The current Minnesota state rail plan (chapter 3 covering passenger rail) has any potential Minneapolis - Sioux Falls train routing via Willmar and down from there, with Minneapolis - Mankato - Worthington - Sioux City being its own separate passenger line. Both of those are considered "20+ year implementation" in terms of timeline, but it's at least in there.


----------



## dogbert617

jebr said:


> The current Minnesota state rail plan (chapter 3 covering passenger rail) has any potential Minneapolis - Sioux Falls train routing via Willmar and down from there, with Minneapolis - Mankato - Worthington - Sioux City being its own separate passenger line. Both of those are considered "20+ year implementation" in terms of timeline, but it's at least in there.
> 
> View attachment 14638



Thanks for mentioning this map. Good to see restoring service to Duluth is in this plan, along with bringing back service to Mankato, Des Moines, and Eau Claire(though I'm sure WI would have to chip in funding for this to occur). And ultimately over time, also to Sioux Falls, Sioux City, and even between Fargo to Winnipeg. If adding service besides the existing EB train would no longer require an o-dark-thirty arrival time into Fargo, that'd be really great.

On a side note, I hope Northstar commuter rail(going northwest from Minneapolis, and long term there is talk about expanding that line to St. Cloud, besides the current bus connection from that commuter rail line) times are expanded. Since I looked at the current schedule, and the schedule of train runs on Northstar was a lot more limited than I thought it'd be. At least the light rail lines that operate in the Twin Cities area, have good frequency and also run late as well.


----------

