# Restore Passenger Service to Southern Montana?



## Daphne312 (Jan 5, 2020)

https://www.kpax.com/news/local-new...-passenger-rail-along-montanas-southern-route

I would be a regular.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 5, 2020)

It would be interesting to know what the local politics are that the state legislature won't support a study bill and endorse the concept, even when there's no funding involved.



> "
> Advocates have also made several tries at the state Legislature, not to seek funding but rather to ask the governing body to support the idea. While there was no fiscal attachment, the Legislature has refused to support it.
> 
> “That failed every single time with the exception of this last legislative session when Andrea Olsen carried a study bill to look at passenger transportation in Montana,” Strohmaier said. “That actually passed, but the interim committee a few months ago torpedoed that study, using some of the same tired arguments. The Legislature has proven to be utterly ineffectual at having any kind of vision.”


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Jan 5, 2020)

So are they proposing running a whole new train? Moving the Empire Builder to this route? Splitting and combining with the Empire Builder? 

Although this would be a really nice train to ride, where are they going to get the cars to run the train with? Amtrak is pretty much tapped out for extra cars in the summers already.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 6, 2020)

A little off-topic but, Missoula is one of the police departments currently featured on LivePD


Now, back to the originally scheduled topic


----------



## jis (Jan 6, 2020)

F900ElCapitan said:


> So are they proposing running a whole new train? Moving the Empire Builder to this route? Splitting and combining with the Empire Builder?


I have no idea what these advocates think, but an exercise identifying and prioritizing currently unserved LD routes that is being carried out by a Committee at RPA assumes new trains with new equipment for the purposes of costing out proposals. It is unrealistic to think that Amtrak will add any new LD trains with its current equipment pool, beyond minor modifications and extensions.


> Although this would be a really nice train to ride, where are they going to get the cars to run the train with? Amtrak is pretty much tapped out for extra cars in the summers already.


Won't happen without additional equipment.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Jan 6, 2020)

jis said:


> I have no idea what these advocates think, but an exercise identifying and prioritizing currently unserved LD routes that is being carried out by a Committee at RPA assumes new trains with new equipment for the purposes of costing out proposals. It is unrealistic to think that Amtrak will add any new LD trains with its current equipment pool, beyond minor modifications and extensions.
> 
> Won't happen without additional equipment.



Exactly! Unfortunately the article lacked a lot of details and left a lot of questions for anyone with a bit of knowledge about Amtrak’s current situations. So I don’t see this going anywhere until Amtrak can get Superliner replacement equipment on board that is above and beyond 1-to-1 replacement. I really hope the current pro-rail sentiment holds until an actual order and then maybe Amtrak will be able to order a much better number of cars. 

Of course this is all predicated on not a lot changing on the HSR front, which may free up a fair amount of Superliners.


----------



## sttom (Jan 6, 2020)

F900ElCapitan said:


> So are they proposing running a whole new train? Moving the Empire Builder to this route? Splitting and combining with the Empire Builder?



From what the article said the people advocating for more train service want to bring back the North Coast Hiawatha. So it would be separate train. As for splitting it, who knows. They haven't even done a study yet. Adding it as a separate train when the equipment is available would add a second Chicago-MSP train which Minnesota wants. 

As for the equipment, not sure where they would get it. For how many long distance trains we need, we'd need to at least double the number of Superliners or more.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 6, 2020)

sttom said:


> From what the article said the people advocating for more train service want to bring back the North Coast Hiawatha. So it would be separate train. As for splitting it, who knows. They haven't even done a study yet. Adding it as a separate train when the equipment is available would add a second Chicago-MSP train which Minnesota wants.
> 
> As for the equipment, not sure where they would get it. For how many long distance trains we need, we'd need to at least double the number of Superliners or more.


You know, it's not like it's engraved on tablets that the equipment for this second train needs to be Superliners. If there's political support for this service, that will have to include support for new equipment, and single-level equipment might be cheaper. Anyway, there's a bunch of new Viewliner 2 diners are are being used as axle count cars  that could be dedicated to this service, right? And whenever they get around to replacing the Amfleets, the old Amfleets could be converted to long-distance coaches. OK, sleeping cars are a problem, but maybe the train could be run as a coach only train, like the old El Capitan, perhaps with a business class section to collect some premium gravy revenue. Most of the demand will be for shorter trips that don't require a full overnight, and people who want to ride the full trip and want a bit of quiet can enjoy the premium business class seats.

This could also be used as an experiment to see if they can run a full dining service in a way that would make enough revenue to cover their costs. If they could find some dome cars or fabricate some from some old Amfleets, that might be another draw for the through passengers, but I expect that the main political support would come from Minnesota, which wants another Chicago-Twin Cities train and southern Montana, which would like rail service to link it's larger cities and towns together, and don't care as much about the tourists, except that premium service adds revenue gravy.


----------



## jis (Jan 6, 2020)

Do we know for sure that Amtrak plans to replace Superliners by in kind bi-level equipment? Or are they doing an open RFP asking vendors to propose solutions for meeting specific requirements? At least I don't know for sure.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 6, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> You know, it's not like it's engraved on tablets handed down by the Deity that the equipment for this second train needs to be Superliners. If there's political support for this service, that will have to include support for new equipment, and single-level equipment might be cheaper. Anyway, there's a bunch of new Viewliner 2 diners are are being used as axle count cars  that could be dedicated to this service, right? And whenever they get around to replacing the Amfleets, the old Amfleets could be converted to long-distance coaches. OK, sleeping cars are a problem, but maybe the train could be run as a coach only train, like the old El Capitan, perhaps with a business class section to collect some premium gravy revenue. Most of the demand will be for shorter trips that don't require a full overnight, and people who want to ride the full trip and want a bit of quiet can enjoy the premium business class seats.
> 
> This could also be used as an experiment to see if they can run a full dining service in a way that would make enough revenue to cover their costs. If they could find some dome cars or fabricate some from some old Amfleets, that might be another draw for the through passengers, but I expect that the main political support would come from Minnesota, which wants another Chicago-Twin Cities train and southern Montana, which would like rail service to link it's larger cities and towns together, and don't care as much about the tourists, except that premium service adds revenue gravy.


----------



## Amtrakfflyer (Jan 6, 2020)

I hope the contract for the Superliner replacement/fleet addition/refurbishment is put on hold until Amtrak has semi competent forward thinking adult supervision at the helm. Right now we just have to hope maintenance isn’t being deferred on the Superliners and LD locomotives in the name of breaking even. That’s one easy way to sabotage the network.


----------



## sttom (Jan 6, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> You know, it's not like it's engraved on tablets that the equipment for this second train needs to be Superliners. If there's political support for this service, that will have to include support for new equipment, and single-level equipment might be cheaper. Anyway, there's a bunch of new Viewliner 2 diners are are being used as axle count cars  that could be dedicated to this service, right? And whenever they get around to replacing the Amfleets, the old Amfleets could be converted to long-distance coaches. OK, sleeping cars are a problem, but maybe the train could be run as a coach only train, like the old El Capitan, perhaps with a business class section to collect some premium gravy revenue. Most of the demand will be for shorter trips that don't require a full overnight, and people who want to ride the full trip and want a bit of quiet can enjoy the premium business class seats.
> 
> This could also be used as an experiment to see if they can run a full dining service in a way that would make enough revenue to cover their costs. If they could find some dome cars or fabricate some from some old Amfleets, that might be another draw for the through passengers, but I expect that the main political support would come from Minnesota, which wants another Chicago-Twin Cities train and southern Montana, which would like rail service to link it's larger cities and towns together, and don't care as much about the tourists, except that premium service adds revenue gravy.



As for Superliners and their costs, the Viewliner order boiled down to ~$2.8 million per car and the bi level order (before it was borked) was ~$2.8 million per car when adjusted for inflation. Also it's about 2 Superliners per 3 Viewliners (or equivalents) when it comes to capacity. So to replace all the Superliners with Viewliners or equivalents, you'd need 720 cars. Which may or may not be worth it. Assuming the cost per Superliner 3 isn't more than 50% over the inflation adjusted Viewliner price, the capacity and smaller fleet might be worth it. 

As for reusing the Amfleets post replacement, I think it would be a good idea to keep using them. It's not ever day Amtrak gets spare equipment. And at one point I heard they put roomette modules into an Amfleet car. They could jury rig some of them into sleepers and use them as a stop gap measure.


----------



## west point (Jan 6, 2020)

If I was part of Minnesota politics I would not support this train as the second train to CHI. The inability of that route to provide a reliable on time departure from MSP really downgrades its worth. Every proposal has an early departure from MSP. The only way to allow this route to be the second would be for a make up train to leave on time. Suspect that this route would call for cut off cars at MXP anyway ? Have not even studied what times an early MSP departure would mean for all town and cities along the route.


----------



## sttom (Jan 6, 2020)

west point said:


> If I was part of Minnesota politics I would not support this train as the second train to CHI. The inability of that route to provide a reliable on time departure from MSP really downgrades its worth. Every proposal has an early departure from MSP. The only way to allow this route to be the second would be for a make up train to leave on time. Suspect that this route would call for cut off cars at MXP anyway ? Have not even studied what times an early MSP departure would mean for all town and cities along the route.



On the June 1977 schedule the eastbound departure from MSP was 11:35 am and the westbound departure was 8:40 pm (8:05 arrival). The westbound train would get to Missoula at 9:20 pm and the eastbound arrived at 7:20 am. My bigger concern would be that the trip time is approximately 11 hours. Even if you shift the schedule 2 hours earlier, the travel time is still 11 hours.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 7, 2020)

If Amtrak is ever going to bring back the North Coast Hiawatha (or an equivalent), they're gonna have to bring back the Stampede Pass route (heard BNSF reactivated it) as the Stevens Pass route is congested.


----------



## zephyr17 (Jan 7, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> If Amtrak is ever going to bring back the North Coast Hiawatha (or an equivalent), they're gonna have to bring back the Stampede Pass route (heard BNSF reactivated it) as the Stevens Pass route is congested.


Stampede has been back in service for years.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 7, 2020)

zephyr17 said:


> Stampede has been back in service for years.



Time for Amtrak to start using it (it'd be up to BNSF). I can see it work for a future intercity train serving Ellensburg, Yakima, the Tri-Cities and Spokane in addition to neo-NCH.


----------



## PRR 60 (Jan 7, 2020)

From just east of Billings to Sandpoint ID, the southern route is on Montana Rail Link (MRL) - a Class 2. As far as I know, Amtrak has no operations on MRL. Lines that do not have to deal with Amtrak can run trains however they want: direction and times. Throw Amtrak into that mix, running at times and in directions that may foul the flow, and the need for new sidings and other capacity enhancements crops up. Not sure about the track class of the line, but if it is less than practical for passenger service, the upgrade costs could be substantial.

Then there is the issue of Positive Train Control. Does the existing MRL route have it (BNSF does east of Billings through Dickinson and Bismarck)? It might due to the volume and nature of the traffic. But, if not, then adding Amtrak would require adding PTC and that cost would have to be paid by whoever is funding the passenger start up, not MRL.

All these issues show how it is easier to maintain passenger service on a railroad than it is to restart it once it has been gone for years.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 7, 2020)

PRR 60 said:


> Then there is the issue of Positive Train Control. Does the existing MRL route have it (BNSF does east of Billings through Dickinson and Bismarck)? It might due to the volume and nature of the traffic. But, if not, then adding Amtrak would require adding PTC and that cost would have to be paid by whoever is funding the passenger start up, not MRL.



Not currently but MRL is planning on implementing PTC on their tracks https://www.krtv.com/news/montana-a...pt-positive-train-control-to-increase-safety/


----------



## Siegmund (Jan 7, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> It would be interesting to know what the local politics are that the state legislature won't support a study bill and endorse the concept, even when there's no funding involved.



The Montana state legislature bears a certain amount of resemblence to the current U.S. Senate. If the idea comes from our Democratic governor's office, or from the university town of Missoula, it's likely to be dead on arrival rather than considered on its own merits.


----------



## Siegmund (Jan 7, 2020)

F900ElCapitan said:


> So are they proposing running a whole new train? Moving the Empire Builder to this route? Splitting and combining with the Empire Builder?



The discussion in the popular press is all framed as bringing back the North Coast Hiawatha (and the use of the 'Hiawatha' name has caused some local confusion causing people to think it was a proposal to relay track on the Hiawatha Trail across St. Paul Pass.)

Two feasibility studies ago, Amtrak reported on restoring the whole NCH (with prohibitively high costs, of course.) The last time around, in 2010, because the project was at Montana's request rather than Congress's, the proposal was for either a day train Billings-Missoula or a Montana-only loop, Williston-Sidney-Glendive then along the NCH route to Sandpoint. Link to the 2010 study: 
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/railways/amtrak_railstudy.pdf

It makes a whole lot more economic sense as a long distance route than as a local connector. A day train to Sandpoint or Spokane and then sitting until 1AM to board the Builder is not going to be appealing.

Every now and then I've kicked around the notion of Denver-Casper-Thermopolis-Billings (well, Laurel)-Missoula-Seattle in my head instead of restoring the NCH, but I don't think that has ever been officially studied. Nor has restoring the Midwest-Denver-Laurel-Great Falls-Shelby-then-continue-on-the-Builder-route service that ended in the late 50s or early 60s.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 7, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Time for Amtrak to start using it (it'd be up to BNSF). I can see it work for a future intercity train serving Ellensburg, Yakima, the Tri-Cities and Spokane in addition to neo-NCH.



The State of Washington has a plan to use it for a Seattle to Spokane train. No one is talking about where the money is going to come from to run the train, though.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Jan 7, 2020)

Siegmund said:


> The discussion in the popular press is all framed as bringing back the North Coast Hiawatha (and the use of the 'Hiawatha' name has caused some local confusion causing people to think it was a proposal to relay track on the Hiawatha Trail across St. Paul Pass.)
> 
> Two feasibility studies ago, Amtrak reported on restoring the whole NCH (with prohibitively high costs, of course.) The last time around, in 2010, because the project was at Montana's request rather than Congress's, the proposal was for either a day train Billings-Missoula or a Montana-only loop, Williston-Sidney-Glendive then along the NCH route to Sandpoint. Link to the 2010 study:
> https://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/brochures/railways/amtrak_railstudy.pdf
> ...



Thanks for the info. I guess it’s just too preliminary to determine. But I still don’t see an adequate initial rolling stock plan. There definitely isn’t enough Superliner equipment to fulfill this train and talk of extending it to Seattle via Stampede Pass only exacerbates the issue. I’m also not sure if waiting for replaced Amfleet equipment is viable. The cars being replaced first are 40-50 years old, I think it’ll be difficult to pull together even enough of that equipment to pull this off as a Seattle train would need at least 3 sets of equipment and would lack sleepers.


----------



## Willbridge (Jan 7, 2020)

It'll take a while, but there's a fairly determined effort to restore passenger service between Pasco/Tri-Cities and Seattle. It happens that the times for Trains 27/28 connect well for a morning train to Puget points and an evening return. There are other alternatives involving Spokane.

The NP daylight Spokane - Seattle train was mainly for access to intermediate points. The GN _Cascadian _was the preferred daylight SEA-SPK train. The one daily SEA-SPK bus available as an Amtrak Thruway service runs in the Cascadian's slot.

The map linked below shows the existing and proposed lines.

https://www.aawa.us/about/


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 8, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> It'll take a while, but there's a fairly determined effort to restore passenger service between Pasco/Tri-Cities and Seattle. It happens that the times for Trains 27/28 connect well for a morning train to Puget points and an evening return. There are other alternatives involving Spokane.



The only other alternative for Seattle-Spokane train is the GN Stevens Pass line, and that route is at capacity (it's why BNSF reactivated the NP Stampede Pass line), being that there's numerous single-track sections. Perhaps one way to alleviate capacity constraints is to construct a second (actually third) Cascade Tunnel, one that can reliably carry double-stacks. 

Alternatively, a new dedicated passenger line built off from the Stampede Pass rail and following I-90 could be built, connecting Ellensburg to the GN route at the east of Quincy. If not then it can continue following I-90 before connecting to the SP&S line that Amtrak uses for the Empire Builder Portland trains at Ritzville. https://www.cascadiahighspeedrail.com/new-stampede-pass-route.html


----------



## bretton88 (Jan 8, 2020)

Amtrakfflyer said:


> I hope the contract for the Superliner replacement/fleet addition/refurbishment is put on hold until Amtrak has semi competent forward thinking adult supervision at the helm. Right now we just have to hope maintenance isn’t being deferred on the Superliners and LD locomotives in the name of breaking even. That’s one easy way to sabotage the network.


Actually they have thought about it. It's in one of the congressional hearings that they are waiting on the reauthorization to get further direction from Congress (preferably some form of funding) on the future of the LD network before they proceed on the bilevel equipment process. So until that happens this year, we're in a holding pattern.


----------



## Palmetto (Jan 8, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> The only other alternative for Seattle-Spokane train is the GN Stevens Pass line, and that route is at capacity (it's why BNSF reactivated the NP Stampede Pass line), being that there's numerous single-track sections. Perhaps one way to alleviate capacity constraints is to construct a second (actually third) Cascade Tunnel, one that can reliably carry double-stacks.
> 
> Alternatively, a new dedicated passenger line built off from the Stampede Pass rail and following I-90 could be built, connecting Ellensburg to the GN route at the east of Quincy. If not then it can continue following I-90 before connecting to the SP&S line that Amtrak uses for the Empire Builder Portland trains at Ritzville. https://www.cascadiahighspeedrail.com/new-stampede-pass-route.html



The map I have seen shows the service using the BNSF's track from Auburn to Pasco via Ellensburg, then on up to Spokane. The westbound train will be like a salmon swimming upstream, because the railroad uses its Stampede Subdivision for eastbound emty grain trains from Kalama/Longview, and other trains.


----------



## Siegmund (Jan 9, 2020)

I keep forgetting to answer this question:



PRR 60 said:


> Not sure about the track class of the line, but if it is less than practical for passenger service, the upgrade costs could be substantial.



The last official information I have is 10 years old and shows most the route at 45mph for freight. That is already FRA Class 4, so no legal obstacle to running a passenger train up to 80 if the track is good for it. Driving alongside the line I'm quite sure I have paced freights going closer to 60 than 45 several times. The whole line is signaled and most of it has been upgraded from 115 pound rail to 140. I would guess there would be more problems with track speeds in North Dakota than in Montana.

If coal exports stay down there might not be capacity issues, but Mullan Pass is a bit of a chokepoint, with a long westbound grade that freights crawl up at 10mph.

The obvious solution to the chokepoint is to reopen Homestake, and run eastbound empties over it (that way you don't have to open a new helper base or lengthen sidings) - and there WOULD be temptation to put the passenger train on the line less suitable for freight just like there was 40 years ago - but it would be a biiiiiig job to bring Homestake and Butte-Garrison back up to passenger-train speeds (one is out of service the other is only good for 25 now).

Homestake received some semi-serious attention several years ago but it's not even being talked about now - nor will it unless Powder River freight traffic picks back up dramatically.


----------



## Willbridge (Jan 9, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> The only other alternative for Seattle-Spokane train is the GN Stevens Pass line, and that route is at capacity (it's why BNSF reactivated the NP Stampede Pass line), being that there's numerous single-track sections. Perhaps one way to alleviate capacity constraints is to construct a second (actually third) Cascade Tunnel, one that can reliably carry double-stacks.
> 
> Alternatively, a new dedicated passenger line built off from the Stampede Pass rail and following I-90 could be built, connecting Ellensburg to the GN route at the east of Quincy. If not then it can continue following I-90 before connecting to the SP&S line that Amtrak uses for the Empire Builder Portland trains at Ritzville. https://www.cascadiahighspeedrail.com/new-stampede-pass-route.html


 Ritzville is on the former NP main line. The superior Pasco - Spokane alignment of the SP&S was abandoned by BN because it had several steel viaducts that needed to be replaced. During the early years of the BN merger the two lines were used for directional running, including the _Empire Builder_. As most SP&S and later Amtrak passengers traveled this segment in the dark, few people were aware of it.

Decisions to abandon the Milwaukee Road main line and the SP&S Pasco - Spokane and the disposal of the Pasco - Auburn NP segments were all made just before the traffic boomed.


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 10, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> Ritzville is on the former NP main line. The superior Pasco - Spokane alignment of the SP&S was abandoned by BN because it had several steel viaducts that needed to be replaced. During the early years of the BN merger the two lines were used for directional running, including the _Empire Builder_. As most SP&S and later Amtrak passengers traveled this segment in the dark, few people were aware of it.



I see. How did the SP&S and NP Pasco-Spokane lines compare, like which towns did they stop at (cant seem to find an exact alignment of the former)


----------



## Siegmund (Jan 10, 2020)

NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> I see. How did the SP&S and NP Pasco-Spokane lines compare, like which towns did they stop at (cant seem to find an exact alignment of the former)



An old GN timetable shows the Western Star calling (mostly flag stops) at South Cheney, Amber, Rodna, Lamont, Macall, Benge, Hooper, Washtucna, Sperry, Kahlotus, Farrington, Snake River, Redd, and Levey. By 1970 only Washtucna was still a passenger stop.

It followed the north bank of the Columbia River for 30+ miles east of Pasco, climbing higher and higher on the clifs and then turning north up a side canyon. It survives today as the Columbia Plateau Trail.


----------



## Willbridge (Jan 10, 2020)

Siegmund said:


> An old GN timetable shows the Western Star calling (mostly flag stops) at South Cheney, Amber, Rodna, Lamont, Macall, Benge, Hooper, Washtucna, Sperry, Kahlotus, Farrington, Snake River, Redd, and Levey. By 1970 only Washtucna was still a passenger stop.
> 
> It followed the north bank of the Columbia River for 30+ miles east of Pasco, climbing higher and higher on the clifs and then turning north up a side canyon. It survives today as the Columbia Plateau Trail.


Washtucna was an important stop for the RPO. For trivia fans, the Portland - Pasco - Spokane RPO survived the September 1967 elimination of most RPO's due to serving points that were awkward by truck.


----------



## Matthew H Fish (Jan 22, 2020)

I lived in Montana for a long time, south of Missoula, and would have to go to Whitefish to take the train. 

Personally, I see the advantage of this route. I also think it would be a beautiful train ride, and great for tourism. 

But I also have to think realistically about how big of a passenger base such a train would have. Montana has a population of around 1.1 million people, and maybe 500,000 of them live between Billings and Missoula (and maybe 300,000 more might live close enough to still take advantage of the train). That is a small number of people. For comparison, Pierce County and Thurston County (Tacoma and Olympia) in Washington have a combined population of 1.2 million people, equal or more than the population of Montana. Amtrak adding a train between Tacoma and Olympia would arguable serve more people than Billings to Missoula. 

Of course, if Montana was paying totally for the train, then it makes sense, but there are a lot more locations in the West that would be better candidates for train service. Las Vegas-> Salt Lake City, Salt Lake City -> Boise or Portland, Denver -> Albuquerque, Fort Collins-> Pueblo...these would all serve more people, and would make the Amtrak system map make more sense, then Billings -> Missoula. 

So even though I think it is a cool idea, I don't think it should be a priority.


----------



## F900ElCapitan (Jan 22, 2020)

Matthew H Fish said:


> I lived in Montana for a long time, south of Missoula, and would have to go to Whitefish to take the train.
> 
> Personally, I see the advantage of this route. I also think it would be a beautiful train ride, and great for tourism.
> 
> ...



I agree. Even though it would be a beautiful train to ride, there just isn’t the population base to make it work when there is already a train through the state, just a little further north. 

Personally, I don’t see how re-instating a Chicago to Florida train via Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, etc. isn’t the most desired train at nearly any cost. It would connect at least 6 large population bases on a very popular route. But hey, it’s not a 400mi “corridor” train so what do I know...?


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jan 22, 2020)

F900ElCapitan said:


> Personally, I don’t see how re-instating a Chicago to Florida train via Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta, etc. isn’t the most desired train at nearly any cost. It would connect at least 6 large population bases on a very popular route. But hey, it’s not a 400mi “corridor” train so what do I know...?



At the very least, Amtrak is looking at reviving train services from Atlanta to Chattanooga to Nashville. At the same time they can tackle a Nashville-Memphis rail line as part of the Atlanta-Nashville line (we can also add a DFW-Little Rock-Memphis intercity train). These two would help link the Texas Eagle, City of New Orleans, and Crescent.


----------



## west point (Jan 23, 2020)

Nashville - Memphis is not likely. There just is not much interest in that service. A much better option is the Nashville population is ore interested in NVL - CHI service just ahead of ATL - NVL. If NVL to a CNO connection ( maybe Fulton ? ) that would be much of an improvement not going backwards to MEM.


----------



## Willbridge (Jan 25, 2020)

west point said:


> Nashville - Memphis is not likely. There just is not much interest in that service. A much better option is the Nashville population is ore interested in NVL - CHI service just ahead of ATL - NVL. If NVL to a CNO connection ( maybe Fulton ? ) that would be much of an improvement not going backwards to MEM.


Routes radiating from Chicago automatically get advantages: more traffic connections, maintenance facilities, spare equipment, etc. It's the same reason (at Seattle) that Oregon cooperates with Washington for state sponsored service.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 26, 2020)

Put a cattle car on the train. Amtrak has plenty of barely full baggage cars that can be converted as so few stations have baggage service any more. That would justify it if the number of people doesn't.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 27, 2020)

Actually, the southern Montana route serves Billings, Bozemen, Butte, and Missoula, which are among the largest population centers in the state. If the state isn't interested in service to its largest cities, perhaps it might make more sense to have the Empire Builder routed through Southern Montana rather than the High Line.


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2020)

The proposed restored route will not serve Butte. It will serve Helena instead. Butte cannot be reached from the east anymore due to trackage out of service through Homestake Pass.


----------



## Ziv (Jan 27, 2020)

Butte always gets the short end of the stick.


----------



## jiml (Jan 27, 2020)

Ziv said:


> Butte always gets the short end of the stick.


The "Butte-end"?


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 27, 2020)

jis said:


> The proposed restored route will not serve Butte. It will serve Helena instead. Butte cannot be reached from the east anymore due to trackage out of service through Homestake Pass.


OK, but that's even better if they switch, as Helena is the State capital.


----------



## Ziv (Jan 27, 2020)

Jim, your reply went right over my head the first two or three times I read it. Then I was like, EXACTLY! Montana is a middle class state but there are 9 counties out of the 56 that are just hard hit in nearly every way. 8 of them are predominately made up of Indian Reservations, and then there is Butte. Somehow Butte is just always getting the worst of everything.



jiml said:


> The "Butte-end"?


----------



## CAQuail (Jan 28, 2020)

The county that Helena is in has almost twice the population of Butte. In fact I am surprised that back in the 70s they routed the North Coast Hiawatha via Butte instead of following the route of The Mainstreeter through Helena.


----------



## Siegmund (Jan 28, 2020)

CAQuail said:


> The county that Helena is in has almost twice the population of Butte. In fact I am surprised that back in the 70s they routed the North Coast Hiawatha via Butte instead of following the route of The Mainstreeter through Helena.



Butte was the larger, and politically more powerful, city, until the late 70s or early 80s. (The census shows Silver Bow County shrinking steadily since 1920 -- as mining became more mechanized, I expect -- and Lewis and Clark County only catching up in 1980.) Interstate 15 goes through Butte, instead of Dillon-Twin Bridges-Whitehall-Boulder where a 4-lane road for truckers belongs, entirely because of 60s and 70s political influence.

But from a railroad operation standpoint, the big factor is that Homestake is the more difficult pass (~400 feet higher, curvier, and with a serious shortage of long passing sidings) and very undesirable for heavy freight trains. I think it was mostly an operations decision, much like routing passenger traffic from Missoula to Paradise via Evaro Hill and freight traffic along the water-level route via St. Regis.

As I mentioned upthread, if Homestake were open today there would be serious pressure to put the hypothetical passenger trains through Butte, along with eastbound empties, to keep Mullan Pass freight capacity open, and avoid needing helper bases in Butte. Same issue as we hear about at the Cascade Tunnel and Tehachapi Loop in miniature.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 28, 2020)

I have not counted them - I wonder how many State Capitals do not have passenger service. I know Tallahassee in Florida does not have passenger service.


----------



## west point (Jan 28, 2020)

No state capitol service ? Tallahassee, Montgomery, Nashville, Frankford, Columbus, Dover, Concord, Augusta just to cover east of Mississippi river ?


----------



## Siegmund (Jan 28, 2020)

Qapla said:


> I have not counted them - I wonder how many State Capitals do not have passenger service. I know Tallahassee in Florida does NOT have passenger service.



I count 20. Currently not served are the following:

Juneau, AK - obviously impossible
Phoenix, AZ - formerly served, now bypassed due to track abandonment
Dover, DE - Delmarva Peninsula service looks unlikely at least by Amtrak
Tallahassee, FL - served 1993-2005
Honolulu, HI - obviously impossible
Boise, ID - served 1979-1997, restoring service has a Phoenix-esque track abandonment issue
Des Moines, IA - not served since before Amtrak
Frankfort, KY - infeasible, not on any reasonable route
Baton Rouge, LA - not served since before Amtrak
Augusta, ME - not served since before Amtrak, but a plausible future extension of the Downeaster beyond Brunswick
Annapolis, MD - not on any reasonable route (Baltimore-Annapolis commuter service maybe)
Helena, MT - as discussed in this thread.
Carson City, NV - not feasible (bus from Reno to CZ has often been provided)
Concord, NH - not served since before Amtrak (anyone for Boston-Montreal service?)
Santa Fe, NM - infeasible for long distance, but the Rail Runner has been added
Bismarck, ND - lost service 1979
Columbus, OH - lost service 1979
Pierre, SD - not served since before Amtrak. The tracks are still there but sort of a dead end
Madison, WI - if it happens it'll be a northwestward expansion of Chicago commuter service
Cheyenne, WY - served intermittently by San Francisco Zephyr and later Pioneer.

I assume you'd count Olympia WA and Montpelier VT as "served" since nearby junctions are served and the main lines don't go through the capitals.


----------



## railiner (Jan 28, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, the southern Montana route serves Billings, Bozemen, Butte, and Missoula, which are among the largest population centers in the state. If the state isn't interested in service to its largest cities, perhaps it might make more sense to have the Empire Builder routed through Southern Montana rather than the High Line.


You would think the southern route would have been chosen by Amtrak’s original incorporators for the Chicago/Seattle train in 1971...but IIRC, they thought that since the southern route was served well by the Interstate highways, along with 3 to 4 times per day Greyhound service, they would give a break to the “hi-line”.
The NC Hiawatha was an added “experimental service”, a short time later.


----------



## jiml (Jan 28, 2020)

Siegmund said:


> I count 20. Currently not served are the following:
> 
> Juneau, AK - obviously impossible
> Phoenix, AZ - formerly served, now bypassed due to track abandonment
> ...


That's a really interesting list. VIA has a similar problem in Canada - roughly proportionate (obviously with some of the same limitations with islands and remote northern locations), but still some that should be addressed.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 28, 2020)

In Florida, two of the States major Universities, both State Institutes, do not have passenger service. There is no service for FSU or for UF - which means there is no service from one school to the other, either.

While it would be nice to see service restored to Southern Montana, it would be even nicer to see service restored to some of the areas that already have functional tracks that simply are not being used for passenger service.


----------



## omaha (Jan 29, 2020)

According to Amtrak's Route selection manual in 1971 "In general, the route segments selected either covered the largest population or generated the greatest ridership. However, in choosing the northern route rather than the southern, between Fargo and Spokane, the relative absence of alternative modes of transportation along the northern route and the higher ridership of the northern route, weighed significantly in the decision."

Later on the report continues:

"The key decision between Fargo and Spokane is whether to operate the northern route (through Minot, Williston and Glacier Park) or the southern route (through Bismarck, Billings and Missoula). The northern route contributes much higher ridership than the southern route (although the southern route has a 50 percent population advantage); it is shorter and more than one hour faster, and the intermediate cities (and Glacier Park) have little other transportation available to them, while the southern route is served by an interstate highway and good air service. The northern toute serves Glacier Park directly."


----------



## neroden (Jan 29, 2020)

Ziv said:


> Somehow Butte is just always getting the worst of everything.


My mom's home town.

More on topic, I'd ride the North Coast Hiawatha to Bismarck, ND. But ND seems even less interested in funding service than Montana does.


----------



## Matthew H Fish (Jan 30, 2020)

omaha said:


> According to Amtrak's Route selection manual in 1971 ...
> The northern route contributes much higher ridership than the southern route (although the southern route has a 50 percent population advantage); i



I would have to double check, but I think that there has been a pretty drastic change in population in Montana in the last few decades. The Highline was a farming area, and its population has aged and declined. At the same time, southern cities have become tourist or retiree centers. Other than Kalispell, which has grown, all the northern cities have declined, while Billings, Bozeman and Missoula have gotten larger.


----------



## Daphne312 (Mar 8, 2020)

Matthew H Fish said:


> I would have to double check, but I think that there has been a pretty drastic change in population in Montana in the last few decades. The Highline was a farming area, and its population has aged and declined. At the same time, southern cities have become tourist or retiree centers. Other than Kalispell, which has grown, all the northern cities have declined, while Billings, Bozeman and Missoula have gotten larger.



Missoula and environs have grown with retirees and CA refugees a strong component. *family members*


----------



## railiner (Mar 8, 2020)

Although not in Montana, but close by, Williston also on the northern route has been a genuine boom town...at least when oil prices were up...


----------



## toddinde (Mar 9, 2020)

Definitely add the southern route, but not at the expense of the Empire Builder which is a popular, established route, serving an extremely underserved area. There is no room for any route cuts in the already skeletal Amtrak system. A growing country needs more trains, not less.


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Definitely add the southern route, but not at the expense of the Empire Builder which is a popular, established route, serving an extremely underserved area. There is no room for any route cuts in the already skeletal Amtrak system. A growing country needs more trains, not less.


Agreed. Net growth should be the watchword. Not merely rearranging the deckchairs.


----------



## John Santos (Mar 9, 2020)

Would this proposed southern route provide service to Yellowstone NP?
When I went to Yellowstone about 5 years ago, I took the LSL to CHI and the EB to MSP. Attended a con there for about 4 days and rented a car on Monday. Drove to Yellowstone (took about 4 days because there is only so much driving I can do in a day), Yellowstone for about 5 days, drove back to MSP, EB and LSL home. (While I was there, Amtrak contacted me and told me the EB was running so late, I couldn't count on the connection, so I moved up the MSP->CHI leg a day, resulting in one less day at Yellowstone. Turned out we made it to CHI in plenty of time for the LSL, but I spent a night and the next day there, which was fun.)
I realized in the midst of this that it would have been smarter to take the EB to somewhere near Glacier and drive south across Montana vs. driving across Minnesota, ND and most of Montana, but it still would probably have take me two days.
In the town of Gardiner, at one of the northern entrances to the park, there were lots of people arriving there on trains, and there were train tracks through the town. I don't know if they are still active tracks, connected to wherever a southern Montana route would run, but I think the scenery and experience would be fantastic.


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2020)

Back when the NCH was running, I believe Yellowstone was served out of Livingston MT, entering the park through Gardiner.

From EB one would probably choose among Shelby, Havre or Malta, with Havre having the best rental car availability probably.


----------



## Palmetto (Mar 9, 2020)

Just before Amtrak, the Burlington Northern showed Billings or Livingston as gateways to Yellowstone.


----------



## Siegmund (Mar 9, 2020)

Livingston-Gardiner passenger service ended in the 50s, and the rails were lifted circa 1981. 

A ton of tourists are being transported by bus from Bozeman to Gardiner every day when the Park is open (Bozeman is the nearest airport with scheduled service.) Presumably if a train were reinstated it would be met at either Bozeman or Livingston by buses.


----------



## railiner (Mar 9, 2020)

When the Pioneer still ran, you could also access Yellowstone from Pocatello, ID ...
or from Rock Springs, WY...


----------



## jis (Mar 9, 2020)

railiner said:


> When the Pioneer still ran, you could also access Yellowstone from Pocatello, ID ...
> or from Rock Springs, WY...


From Rock Springs WY also when the San Francisco Zephyr ran.


----------



## railiner (Mar 10, 2020)

jis said:


> From Rock Springs WY also when the San Francisco Zephyr ran.


 Right...I referenced the Pioneer, because after the SFZ became the CZ, the Pioneer was the last Amtrak train to regularly serve the Wyoming route, in its final version.


----------



## Ziv (Mar 10, 2020)

Livingston is a great gateway to Yellowstone. It has a lot of good cafes and some decent hotels and Highway 89 is a straight shot south from Livingston, running alongside the Yellowstone River right down center of Paradise Valley. It is an hours drive but a very pleasant hour. Gardiner is a bit of a tourist hub, but north Yellowstone is my favorite part of the Park. You start with the elk at Mammoth Hot Springs, the springs themselves, then head east on the Grand Loop to Blacktail Plateau and Hellroaring Trailhead. As you move on you hit Elk Creek, which is usually a good bet to spot not just elk but bears and buffalo as well. Petrified Tree is kind of cool, but not something I go back to see again and again. Then you have a big choice. Go south to the Great Falls of the Yellowstone via the overhanging cliff or east to the Lamar Valley, the Serengeti of the US, home of truly epic buffalo traffic jams.
I love this place.


Palmetto said:


> Just before Amtrak, the Burlington Northern showed Billings or Livingston as gateways to Yellowstone.


----------



## jis (Mar 10, 2020)

railiner said:


> Right...I referenced the Pioneer, because after the SFZ became the CZ, the Pioneer was the last Amtrak train to regularly serve the Wyoming route, in its final version.



I thought I’d mention the SFZ because there were several years when it was the only train and there was no Pioneer or Desert Wind. Then there was a period when there was a Pioneer which ran only between SLC and Seattle, not serving Rock Springs WY, but of course serving Pocatello ID. Ride on that little train was a special fun experience.


----------



## railiner (Mar 10, 2020)

Until 1960, the UP ran seasonal passenger trains on its branch line to West Yellowstone. At one time it provided 50% of all rail visitor’s to Yellowstone.

Besides the Northern Pacific from Gardiner; other roads getting in on the traffic were: the Milwaukee Road from Three Forks and later, Gallatin; the Burlington Route from Cody; and the North Western to a minor extant through Lander...


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 10, 2020)

jis said:


> Back when the NCH was running, I believe Yellowstone was served out of Livingston MT, entering the park through Gardiner.
> 
> From EB one would probably choose among Shelby, Havre or Malta, with Havre having the best rental car availability probably.


When I took the EB to visit Yellowstone, I got off in Havre. There was a Budget car rental that picked me up at the station.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 11, 2020)

Madison will be served by way of Milwaukee and Watertown. Logical extension of the Hiawatha and the designated route for the Midwest High Speed Rail project. The Watertown to Madison segment is only 30 miles. The route through Janesville makes no sense, and is a lot of dark railroad with a ton of grade crossings. It also doesn’t take advantage of the most natural market which is Milwaukee to Madison.


jiml said:


> That's a really interesting list. VIA has a similar problem in Canada - roughly proportionate (obviously with some of the same limitations with islands and remote northern locations), but still some that should be addressed.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom (Mar 11, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Madison will be served by way of Milwaukee and Watertown. Logical extension of the Hiawatha and the designated route for the Midwest High Speed Rail project. The Watertown to Madison segment is only 30 miles. The route through Janesville makes no sense, and is a lot of dark railroad with a ton of grade crossings. It also doesn’t take advantage of the most natural market which is Milwaukee to Madison.


Lots of UW-Madison students would take a Madison-Milwaukee train, just like students from Chicago taking the Illini or the Saluki to get to & from UIUC or SIU. I was one of those UW-Madison students in the very early 1980s, and I had to take a combination of 3-4 buses to get home to Kenosha on breaks (Madison-Milwaukee and Milwaukee-Racine via long-distance buses, then a Racine city bus to the UW-Parkside campus, then a Kenosha city bus to the stop nearest Mom & Dad's house if the weather was too foul to walk the rest of the way home).


----------



## WICT106 (Mar 11, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Madison will be served by way of Milwaukee and Watertown. Logical extension of the Hiawatha and the designated route for the Midwest High Speed Rail project. The Watertown to Madison segment is only 30 miles. The route through Janesville makes no sense, and is a lot of dark railroad with a ton of grade crossings. It also doesn’t take advantage of the most natural market which is Milwaukee to Madison.





MccfamschoolMom said:


> Lots of UW-Madison students would take a Madison-Milwaukee train, just like students from Chicago taking the Illini or the Saluki to get to & from UIUC or SIU. I was one of those UW-Madison students in the very early 1980s, and I had to take a combination of 3-4 buses to get home to Kenosha on breaks (Madison-Milwaukee and Milwaukee-Racine via long-distance buses, then a Racine city bus to the UW-Parkside campus, then a Kenosha city bus to the stop nearest Mom & Dad's house if the weather was too foul to walk the rest of the way home).


 That's what was thought when the project was being prepared in the 1990s and 2000s, and look what happened during the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign. We will still have to fight the battles of getting funding, and extending train service in a State where the majority of the residents have no experience taking a train on a regular basis, and also don't use transit. Wisconsin residents drive everywhere. Get ready for all of the anti- train arguments ( ie., "Who's going to ride it?" "It doesn't go through my town," It only goes to Madison," "Cow speed rail," "The Dane Train," etc., etc.) to be deployed when the Hiawatha service extension to Madison returns to the fore.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 16, 2020)

WICT106 said:


> That's what was thought when the project was being prepared in the 1990s and 2000s, and look what happened during the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial campaign. We will still have to fight the battles of getting funding, and extending train service in a State where the majority of the residents have no experience taking a train on a regular basis, and also don't use transit. Wisconsin residents drive everywhere. Get ready for all of the anti- train arguments ( ie., "Who's going to ride it?" "It doesn't go through my town," It only goes to Madison," "Cow speed rail," "The Dane Train," etc., etc.) to be deployed when the Hiawatha service extension to Madison returns to the fore.


You’re right! Wisconsin has a reputation as a progressive state, but that’s really not the case. The anti-rail sentiment was ugly, and presented a completely unrealistic picture. I think it is the long tradition of ultra-conservative talk radio in the Milwaukee area and various “think tanks” financed by special interests with long ties to Wisconsin like the Bradley’s, Uhlein’s, Hendricks’s, and like minded outsiders like the Koch’s. Yes, the conservatives killed a good project, but they out organized the folks in favor. Also, extremely dumb, internal arguing by the rail advocates about the Madison Station was not helpful. Some wanted the station at the Madison Airport which would have made the service inconvenient to its largest base of riders. I believe even WisARP came out in favor of the airport station, created turmoil at exactly the wrong time. It’s sad to think what might have been.


----------



## WICT106 (Mar 16, 2020)

toddinde said:


> You’re right! Wisconsin has a reputation as a progressive state, but that’s really not the case. The anti-rail sentiment was ugly, and presented a completely unrealistic picture. I think it is the long tradition of ultra-conservative talk radio in the Milwaukee area and various “think tanks” financed by special interests with long ties to Wisconsin like the Bradley’s, Uhlein’s, Hendricks’s, and like minded outsiders like the Koch’s. Yes, the conservatives killed a good project, but they out organized the folks in favor. Also, extremely dumb, internal arguing by the rail advocates about the Madison Station was not helpful. Some wanted the station at the Madison Airport which would have made the service inconvenient to its largest base of riders. I believe even WisARP came out in favor of the airport station, created turmoil at exactly the wrong time. It’s sad to think what might have been.


WisARP members in Dane County, wanted the station out at the airport because they ( and I ) were concerned about long term parking. Due to Madison's geography, parking downtown has some serious constraints, as Madison's downtown is on an isthmus between two lakes. It places some significant restrictions on all downtown parking, whereas the airport location would be more convenient for the couple of hundred thousand of us who live elsewhere other than downtown. As for the airport being inconvenient, my observation is that University students have never had any difficulty getting to and from the airport.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 17, 2020)

WICT106 said:


> WisARP members in Dane County, wanted the station out at the airport because they ( and I ) were concerned about long term parking. Due to Madison's geography, parking downtown has some serious constraints, as Madison's downtown is on an isthmus between two lakes. It places some significant restrictions on all downtown parking, whereas the airport location would be more convenient for the couple of hundred thousand of us who live elsewhere other than downtown. As for the airport being inconvenient, my observation is that University students have never had any difficulty getting to and from the airport.


Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Ultimately, the airport would have been in the mix once the line was extended to Minneapolis. But I still dissent. The view of rail as a park and ride was already obsolete then. With Millennials eschewing cars, bicycling taking off, Uber and Lyft, the airport Station was the height of mid-20th century in the 21st century, and the antithesis of New Urbanism. The thousands of people flocking to live on the Isthmus more than make up for the suburban folks in Sun Prairie driving to the airport. Folks more likely to drive all the way anyway. Students would have walked or biked downtown, but no way would they have schleped out to the airport. Take it from someone who went to school in Madison. The uniquely American paranoia around backing trains into the station was also a nonsensical excuse in an era of push/pull trains. Anyway, the station argument helped end the whole thing, and here we are, years later, still debating, and no trains. Epic fail.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 17, 2020)

toddinde said:


> With Millennials eschewing cars, bicycling taking off, Uber and Lyft, the airport Station was the height of mid-20th century in the 21st century, and the antithesis of New Urbanism.


I think this myth about "Millenials eschewing cars" needs to be debunked. They seem to be driving as much as anybody else. How can they help not doing so, as there are only a few cities with walkable neighborhoods and decent transit service, and most of the less crime-ridden areas of those cities are not affordable to young people with crappy gig-economy jobs. Thus, most millenials, just like the rest of us, have to live in crappy suburban sprawl where you need a car to get around.

Intercity (or even commuter) rail serving Madison might, indeed have a large pool of riders who live in the downtown area, but for any service to have widespread support, it will also need to be convenient for the much larger number of people who are forced to live in sprawlsville.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 17, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> I think this myth about "Millenials eschewing cars" needs to be debunked. They seem to be driving as much as anybody else. How can they help not doing so, as there are only a few cities with walkable neighborhoods and decent transit service, and most of the less crime-ridden areas of those cities are not affordable to young people with crappy gig-economy jobs. Thus, most millenials, just like the rest of us, have to live in crappy suburban sprawl where you need a car to get around.
> 
> Intercity (or even commuter) rail serving Madison might, indeed have a large pool of riders who live in the downtown area, but for any service to have widespread support, it will also need to be convenient for the much larger number of people who are forced to live in sprawlsville.


Excellent Joe!!!!


----------



## MccfamschoolMom (Mar 17, 2020)

Does Madison currently have city bus service out to the airport? If it does, a stop at a train station near the airport would be easy to add.
(As a grad student at UW-Madison at the beginning of the 1980s, I rarely had a need to take a city bus in Madison, except perhaps to go to a shopping mall, since downtown and my work-study job were within easy walking distance of campus. However, I would have been happy to take a city bus to catch a train ride home.)


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Mar 17, 2020)

MccfamschoolMom said:


> Does Madison currently have city bus service out to the airport? If it does, a stop at a train station near the airport would be easy to add.
> (As a grad student at UW-Madison at the beginning of the 1980s, I rarely had a need to take a city bus in Madison, except perhaps to go to a shopping mall, since downtown and my work-study job were within easy walking distance of campus. However, I would have been happy to take a city bus to catch a train ride home.)



Madison does have a bus service that serves the airport


----------



## IndyLions (Mar 18, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> I think this myth about "Millenials eschewing cars" needs to be debunked. They seem to be driving as much as anybody else. How can they help not doing so, as there are only a few cities with walkable neighborhoods and decent transit service, and most of the less crime-ridden areas of those cities are not affordable to young people with crappy gig-economy jobs. Thus, most millenials, just like the rest of us, have to live in crappy suburban sprawl where you need a car to get around.
> 
> Intercity (or even commuter) rail serving Madison might, indeed have a large pool of riders who live in the downtown area, but for any service to have widespread support, it will also need to be convenient for the much larger number of people who are forced to live in sprawlsville.



Whether you call it “eschewing cars” or just simply choosing to live in urban areas (where cars are not nearly as important to get around) - it is a real thing.

All you have to do is look at the resurgence of housing in the downtown areas of every single midwestern city.

In regards to whether trains should stop downtown or the airport - of course they should stop at both. Those are both important destinations for any community.


----------



## Palmetto (Mar 18, 2020)

I come here to read about Southern Montana service restoration, not millenials and their habits, nor Wisconsin.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 18, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> All you havee to do is look at the resurgence of housing in the downtown areas of every single midwestern city.



There might be a "resurgence" of housing in downtown areas, but I suspect the the number of housing units available is small relative to the total number of housing units being added in the entire metropolitan area. We are nowhere near any sort of "new urbanist" paradise. Cars are required in most of the places where people live in the US. Even in some of the "resurgent" downtown areas in Baltimore, where I live, the transit service is inadequate and people need to use their cars as the primary means of transportation.



> In regards to whether trains should stop downtown or the airport - of course they should stop at both. Those are both important destinations for any community.



I can't disagree with that, but given our national tight-fistedness with funding infrastructure projects, you might not be able build the original service with both. If it's cheaper to build to the airport, it's probably a better idea to do that first just to get the service running, then worry later about adding service to downtown. By then, there will be ridership and public support for the service that will counteract the anti-train people.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 18, 2020)

IndyLions said:


> Whether you call it “eschewing cars” or just simply choosing to live in urban areas (where cars are not nearly as important to get around) - it is a real thing.
> 
> All you have to do is look at the resurgence of housing in the downtown areas of every single midwestern city.
> 
> In regards to whether trains should stop downtown or the airport - of course they should stop at both. Those are both important destinations for any community.


They we’re always going to have both eventually, but the State of Wisconsin had a large office building on the tracks, next to the Convention Center and two blocks from the Capitol that they were going to refurbish into a downtown station. It was going to include parking close by and be adjacent to a new city market like Seattle has. It was carefully thought out. WisDOT carefully studied it and determined the downtown site was best. The mayor of Madison and Governor wanted the downtown site. The trains could have come downtown and then continued to the airport which should have been to position of the advocates. I grew up in Milwaukee, went to school in Madison, and lived in a small community 45 miles out of Madison for 23 years. I flew monthly out the Madison airport for years. I mean this with all due respect, but the debate at that time was not constructive. I would also say that the advocacy community consists of two very distinct interests. There are the rail cruisers who want to ride the train for the train’s sake, and people who view rail as an efficient, green way to get from point A to B, and also a way to energize communities economically and create jobs and economic energy. The advocacy community can be dominated by the former. I’m a railfan, but decidedly in the latter category.


----------



## Barb Stout (Mar 18, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Thank you for the thoughtful reply. Ultimately, the airport would have been in the mix once the line was extended to Minneapolis. But I still dissent. The view of rail as a park and ride was already obsolete then. With Millennials eschewing cars, bicycling taking off, Uber and Lyft, the airport Station was the height of mid-20th century in the 21st century, and the antithesis of New Urbanism. The thousands of people flocking to live on the Isthmus more than make up for the suburban folks in Sun Prairie driving to the airport. Folks more likely to drive all the way anyway. Students would have walked or biked downtown, but no way would they have schleped out to the airport. Take it from someone who went to school in Madison. The uniquely American paranoia around backing trains into the station was also a nonsensical excuse in an era of push/pull trains. Anyway, the station argument helped end the whole thing, and here we are, years later, still debating, and no trains. Epic fail.


That is true. I went to grad school in Madison, WI and I never saw so many bicyclists. Those students rode their bikes through SNOW! I was so impressed. UW-Mad had more bicyclists than warm weather ASU in Tempe, AZ which has great weather and few hills. Yes, there were plenty of bicyclists there, but compared to UW-Mad, it didn't. Plus, at the time I went there (1997-2003), the city bus system was decent.


----------



## toddinde (Mar 18, 2020)

I would add that Madison is the most European like city in the US. Rail downtown would have been amazing and the ridership would have been through the roof.


----------



## west point (Mar 18, 2020)

This proposal needs to be put on the back burner. Everyone following this thread should be contacting their 3 congress persons and support Amtrak getting the funds that will enable it to b a viable operation after this corona ( colvid-19 ) crisis ends. I have - have you ? ? Otherwise you will never see this route ever even become a reality after Amtrak folds.


----------



## MARC Rider (Mar 22, 2020)

toddinde said:


> I would add that Madison is the most European like city in the US. Rail downtown would have been amazing and the ridership would have been through the roof.


Actually, I think Boston is the most "European" city in the US. Lots of twisty narrow streets, old buildings, plus they already have downtown train stations, lots of intercity and commuter rail, as well as rail rapid transit. Only a crazy person would want to drive in downtown Boston. I myself have done so, but not willingly (except for the short hop from the Big Dig exit at South Station to the Enterprise rental office in South Boston.)


----------



## toddinde (Mar 22, 2020)

MARC Rider said:


> Actually, I think Boston is the most "European" city in the US. Lots of twisty narrow streets, old buildings, plus they already have downtown train stations, lots of intercity and commuter rail, as well as rail rapid transit. Only a crazy person would want to drive in downtown Boston. I myself have done so, but not willingly (except for the short hop from the Big Dig exit at South Station to the Enterprise rental office in South Boston.)


I agree it’s subjective. Madison is more like the medium size German cities I lived near when I was overseas. Places like Mainz, Kaiserslautern, especially Schwerin which is almost identical in many ways. The outdoor cafes, beer gardens and street life. I hear you on Boston. Milwaukee reminds me a lot of Berlin.


----------



## jiml (Mar 22, 2020)

toddinde said:


> Milwaukee reminds me a lot of Berlin.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Mar 22, 2020)

jiml said:


> View attachment 17124


Penny will like this one!


----------



## jiml (Mar 23, 2020)

Bob Dylan said:


> Penny will like this one!


It would be the Jeopardy answer "What do Milwaukee and Berlin have in common?"


----------



## NeueAmtrakCalifornia (Jun 8, 2020)

Sorry if I necro this a bit but

from California legislature may try to stop high speed rail contract | Trains Magazine


> Montana county advances resolution for passenger rail agencies, seeks partners
> A draft resolution to establish an agency to return Amtrak service to Southern Montana has been approved by Missoula County and now will be distributed to other counties along the former route of the North Coast Hiawatha, seeking others willing to join. The Missoula Current reports state law requires at least one other county to express interest to join the proposed Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority. The interested counties would then vote to approve creation of the authority, which would seek funding to restore the Amtrak service which ended in 1979. While the state is currently served by the Empire Builder, the North Coast Hiawatha route includes Montana’s two largest cities, Billings and Missoula.











Missoula County now looking for partners to join Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority


A draft resolution proposing to establish the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority won the preliminary backing of Missoula County commissioners on Thursday. Other Montana counties along the old southern route will be asked to join.




missoulacurrent.com






> A draft resolution proposing to establish the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority won the preliminary backing of Missoula County commissioners on Thursday, moving it one step closer to adoption.
> 
> With Missoula County signaling its intent to adopt the resolution, the document will be distributed to the nearly two-dozen other counties poised along the old Amtrak route across southern Montana in hopes one or more of them will climb aboard.
> 
> “My plan would be to send out our cover letter and draft resolution to all of the potentially participating counties across the southern tier of Montana, and give those counties until the end of June to weigh in on whether they’re interested in participating or not,” Commissioner Dave Strohmaier said.


----------



## Ziv (Jun 8, 2020)

It would be great to see the NCH come back but it would pretty much doom any remote chance that the EB would have of becoming a twice a day route.
But I think getting the NCH back would be worth shutting the door on the one in a million chance of the EB ever becoming a twice daily route.
☺



NeueAmtrakCalifornia said:


> Sorry if I necro this a bit but
> 
> from California legislature may try to stop high speed rail contract | Trains Magazine
> 
> ...


----------



## Willbridge (Jun 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> Until 1960, the UP ran seasonal passenger trains on its branch line to West Yellowstone. At one time it provided 50% of all rail visitor’s to Yellowstone.
> 
> Besides the Northern Pacific from Gardiner; other roads getting in on the traffic were: the Milwaukee Road from Three Forks and later, Gallatin; the Burlington Route from Cody; and the North Western to a minor extant through Lander...


The Milwaukee Road's gateway hotel was restored, and looks nice.





__





Yellowstone Via Gallatin Gateway |







streamlinermemories.info


----------



## railiner (Jun 9, 2020)

Love those illustrated brochure's from the past. I can spend hours perusing them...
Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 9, 2020)

Isn't there a grant to start up a second Chi-SPL train as it is?


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jun 9, 2020)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Isn't there a grant to start up a second Chi-SPL train as it is?


Yes. I don't know how it would work for cities further west, but if the NCH was ever restored as a third train between MSP and Chicago, it could provide an overnight service between the cities. This could also allow for connections to trains east of CHI without duplicating the EB schedule.


----------



## Deni (Jun 9, 2020)

Metra Electric Rider said:


> Isn't there a grant to start up a second Chi-SPL train as it is?


Yeah, but I haven't been able to find any specific info about it, such as potential start date.


----------



## sttom (Jun 9, 2020)

Isn't one of the main problems to adding a second daily frequency to any of the long distance trains the lack of equipment? Its kind of hard to run more trains when there aren't enough cars to run the train. I know the Starlight would also be a good candidate for a second daily run. 

I know the other barrier to second daily frequencies is track work. 

I do think the North Coast Hiawatha would be a good second train since it would add a second trip between Chicago and St Paul. Along with serving parts of the country that lost train service in one of Amtrak's various rounds of cuts.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 9, 2020)

Deni said:


> Yeah, but I haven't been able to find any specific info about it, such as potential start date.


I could be mistaken, but I believe the grant will cover the first few (3?) years of operating costs. However the states (presumably some combination of IL, MN, and WI) still need to put together funding for track improvements and sort out equipment needs.


----------



## Palmetto (Jun 9, 2020)

Deni said:


> Yeah, but I haven't been able to find any specific info about it, such as potential start date.




Here's a bit of info. Scroll down.

U.S. Department of Transportation Announces More Than $22 Million in Grants to Restore and Enhance Intercity Passenger Rail Network | FRA


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jun 10, 2020)

I'll throw out a swag here, but my guess will be that they'll use the new Siemens equipment once that starts arriving.


----------



## Herb (Jun 10, 2020)

Passenger service using trains is the future because air travel is doomed due to the pandemic, which will not go away. You can distance yourself on a train ( book a sleeper!) and there is more room to reconfigure the seats, rooms and sleeper accommodations. W
Hat is missing in all these discussions is the vast of train sets, stations, rail routes and controls. I hope the Rail Passenger Association and Amtrak get us some costs so we can understand and innovate solutions. Amtrak is stuck in a rut when it comes to innovation. !


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 10, 2020)

Herb said:


> Passenger service using trains is the future because air travel is doomed due to the pandemic, which will not go away. You can distance yourself on a train ( book a sleeper!) and there is more room to reconfigure the seats, rooms and sleeper accommodations. W



Passenger rail may, indeed have a good future bu not for the reasons outlined here:

1) The pandemic will go away. Maybe not this year, or even next year, but sooner or later there will be a treatment, a vaccine, or the virus will become less deadly. (Killing hosts isn't really good for viruses.)
2) Sleepers are only available on a small percentage of the passenger trains run by Amtrak. Most people ride short distances in coach or business class, and while the seating is more spacious than airline coach seating, when the train is full (and those of us who support passenger rail would like to see the trains full and bringing in lots of revenue most of the time) there is no social distancing. Passengers who take longer trips actually have in increased risk of catching the virus because they're exposed to the ambient environment in the railcar for a longer period of time than if they flew.
3) Railcars have no more room than airplanes. Right now, it's customary for Amtrak to offer 2X2 coach seating with a larger seat pitch than current airline coach, but there's no reason they couldn't offer 3x3 seating just as cramped as anything the airlines offer. BTW, I once took the Capitol Corridor to Sacremento, and the seat pitch on those California cars was more like that of an airliner than and Superliner. Also, lots of commuter services right now offer cramped 3x2 seating.

Bottom line is that sooner of later lots people will be traveling again, and if they have to go really long distances, most of them are probably going to fly, just like before the pandemic. The numbers of people traveling will be a good bit less than before, but that might have as much to do with the recession as it does with the pandemic. 

I don't think the pandemic changes anything about rail advocacy. Corridor rail service deserves support because it gets people out of cars and short-haul flights. Long-distance rail service provides access to mobility to far-flung rural communities. This provides benefits in reductions in greenhouse gas and other air emissions, reduction in traffic congestion, improved safety as compared to everybody driving, and so forth. Short-term revenue will be tight for everybody involved for a while, but ridership (and revenue) will eventually snap back.


----------



## sttom (Jun 10, 2020)

It is kind of hard to be successful in getting increased service when all "advocates" push for at the federal level is running the existing long distance trains twice a day and restoring a handful of the ones lost over Amtrak's existence. Amtrak needs state and interstate corridor services and there needs to be federal funding for it. But even if we got funding for all 3 priorities, its incredibly unlikely that the Corona virus will even be around in 10 years when the rail improvements would conceivably be finished and the equipment starting to be delivered.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Jun 10, 2020)

sttom said:


> It is kind of hard to be successful in getting increased service when all "advocates" push for at the federal level is running the existing long distance trains twice a day and restoring a handful of the ones lost over Amtrak's existence. Amtrak needs state and interstate corridor services and there needs to be federal funding for it. But even if we got funding for all 3 priorities, its incredibly unlikely that the Corona virus will even be around in 10 years when the rail improvements would conceivably be finished and the equipment starting to be delivered.


The Corona Virus, like all SARS Viruses, isnt going anywhere! Itll be with us always, theres no "Magic" that will make it just disappear like a certain Politician claimed!


----------



## Deni (Jun 11, 2020)

Palmetto said:


> Here's a bit of info. Scroll down.
> 
> U.S. Department of Transportation Announces More Than $22 Million in Grants to Restore and Enhance Intercity Passenger Rail Network | FRA


Yeah, that's where I first saw the news about it. There's really no info in there except the money they got from the Feds. I've not seen anything about a potential start of service date. Or what equipment will be used, stations served (assume the same as the EB, but maybe there's a plan for more?), etc.


----------



## 20th Century Rider (Jun 11, 2020)

Daphne312 said:


> Year of the train? Advocates look to restore passenger rail along Montana’s southern route
> 
> I would be a regular.


Me too! Montana is absolutely beautiful. I'm in!


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17 (Jun 11, 2020)

Deni said:


> Yeah, that's where I first saw the news about it. There's really no info in there except the money they got from the Feds. I've not seen anything about a potential start of service date. Or what equipment will be used, stations served (assume the same as the EB, but maybe there's a plan for more?), etc.


I did see information about stations. The new train is planned to stop at all EB stations east of MSP but also stop at the Hiawatha stations (Milwaukee Airport and Sturtevant).


----------



## Eric S (Jun 11, 2020)

Deni said:


> Yeah, that's where I first saw the news about it. There's really no info in there except the money they got from the Feds. I've not seen anything about a potential start of service date. Or what equipment will be used, stations served (assume the same as the EB, but maybe there's a plan for more?), etc.


There's a study somewhere on the MnDOT website from a few years ago that looked at possible schedules. Equipment would seem to be a guess at this point. Assuming all pre-COVID trains return, the Midwest Siemens cars would seem to be all spoken for but the Horizon equipment being replaced by Siemens would possibly be available. Or one might imagine an add-on order for additional Siemens coaches.


----------



## John Bredin (Jun 11, 2020)

IMHO, a restored NCH should be separate from the Chicago-St. Paul corridor train mentioned above. A key purpose of the second Chi-St.P train is to have a schedule offset by several hours from the Empire Builder's schedule. 

However, absent the long-distance routes serving Chicago being twice-daily, LD service at Chicago is set up to maximize same-day transfer options: Eastern LD trains arrive in the morning, Western trains arrive & depart in the afternoon, and Eastern trains depart in the evening. A restored NCH that stuck to that scheme, arriving & departing Chicago in the afternoon, would be too close to the EB's schedule to be a true second train Chi-St.P., while an NCH that occupied one of the planned schedules of the second Chi-St.P train wouldn't have safe same-day connections to or from Eastern LD trains.

Also, if the state of Minnesota contributes financially to a second train, I'm sure they'd want the departure for Chicago to be on time, which a corridor train commencing there usually would be while a restored NCH would be subject to the usual LD delays.


----------



## John Bredin (Jun 11, 2020)

Eric S said:


> Or one might imagine an add-on order for additional Siemens coaches.


Does the existing Siemens order has an option to buy additional equipment, or would it have to be a separate order? And if it does have an option, when does it have to be exercised?


----------



## Eric S (Jun 11, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> Does the existing Siemens order has an option to buy additional equipment, or would it have to be a separate order? And if it does have an option, when does it have to be exercised?


I wondered the same thing but couldn't remember and, frankly, was too lazy to try to search for that information.

But here's the MnDOT page with information including the 2015 study that looked at possible schedules.


----------



## west point (Jun 11, 2020)

John Bredin said:


> Does the existing Siemens order has an option to buy additional equipment, or would it have to be a separate order? And if it does have an option, when does it have to be exercised?


As I recall there is an option for additional Siemens cars. However the main problem is that until the option is exercised a manufacturing slot is not guaranteed. Right now Siemens is committed for slots on this order, Brightline, and VIA. As for the SC-44s and various light rail orders have no idea if they are on a separate assembly line or are part of the overall set up at Sacramento ?,


----------



## CraigDK (Jun 11, 2020)

Whatever options there are, if they are still available, goes through Sumitomo since they hired Siemens to clean up after Nippon-Sharyo. Even if it is possible to exercise those options, it is probably easier at this point to go straight to Siemens. They certainly have plenty of orders, but it wasn't to long ago that Siemens expanded their plant at Sacramento. I wouldn't think the lead time would be excessive.


----------



## sttom (Jun 11, 2020)

I was doing some recreational Googling about the Siemens plant in Sacramento and it has undergone some expansion over the last couple years and has bought more land for future expansion. 





__





Siemens to expand U.S. plant to meet high-speed rail needs


Siemens Mobility on February 18 announced that in response to the federal government's recent investment in high-speed rail, it has taken steps to expand its U.S. manufacturing plant to meet…




www.reliableplant.com


----------



## Anthony V (Jun 11, 2020)

Isn't the new Siemens rolling stock Wisconsin ordered for the Hiawatha Service an add-on to the Midwest order? I presume some of the equipment in the Midwest order will be going to the Hiawatha, and Wisconsin's order was them fulfilling their end of the deal for new equipment on that route.


----------



## Eric S (Jun 12, 2020)

Anthony V said:


> Isn't the new Siemens rolling stock Wisconsin ordered for the Hiawatha Service an add-on to the Midwest order? I presume some of the equipment in the Midwest order will be going to the Hiawatha, and Wisconsin's order was them fulfilling their end of the deal for new equipment on that route.


I had completely forgotten that Wisconsin was awarded a federal grant (last year?) for some amount of new equipment for the Hiawatha. I think most have assumed it will be Siemens equipment but I do not recall ever hearing anything more after the federal grant was announced.


----------



## sttom (Jun 12, 2020)

I did some digging on the Hiawatha and yes WisDOT was awarded money last year for equipment and other projects linked below. It looks like they are going to add to the Siemens order, but nothing has been officially confirmed. 









Amtrak Hiawatha line gets funding from Wisconsin lawmakers to buy new rail cars


Glenview officials waiting to see impact of new rail cars on the Hiawatha line, after Wisconsin lawmakers approved a $13 million purchase.




www.chicagotribune.com













Transportation: State Wins $27 Million For Hiawatha Line


Federal grant will help fund expansion needed to add trips to and from Chicago.




urbanmilwaukee.com


----------



## jiml (Jun 12, 2020)

Like every other jurisdiction, it will depend on whether there's any money left after the current situation.


----------



## Siegmund (Jun 18, 2020)

I will be surprised if I live to see this new Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority actually run a train... but a second county has now committed to joining Missoula in tilting at this windmill. (Former NCH stop Glendive is in Dawson County.)









Upstart Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority nearly official with second county on board


An effort to reestablish passenger rail across the southern reach of Montana gained a welcome partner this week when Dawson County voted to join Missoula County in establishing the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority.




www.kpax.com


----------



## Siegmund (Jul 20, 2020)

Latest news on the creation of the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority: Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority to include 11 founding counties; adoption pending

The interested counties include those hosting the former Thompson Falls, Missoula, Butte, Bozeman, Livingston, Terry, and Glendive stops, as well as one county that might receive service on a route through Helena, one rural county the train would pass through but not stop in, and two counties adjacent to but not on the route.

Conspicuously absent from the list of interested counties are those containing Helena and Billings.


----------



## AmtrakFlyer (Jul 20, 2020)

We will have a good idea on expansion/contraction and Amtrak in general by this time next year. Until then the best we can work for is the status quo.


----------



## Ziv (Jul 20, 2020)

I wonder why Billings didn't get in there. Hard to believe that both the city manager and a substantial portion of the population wouldn't be supporting this.



Siegmund said:


> Latest news on the creation of the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority: Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority to include 11 founding counties; adoption pending
> 
> The interested counties include those hosting the former Thompson Falls, Missoula, Butte, Bozeman, Livingston, Terry, and Glendive stops, as well as one county that might receive service on a route through Helena, one rural county the train would pass through but not stop in, and two counties adjacent to but not on the route.
> 
> Conspicuously absent from the list of interested counties are those containing Helena and Billings.


----------



## railiner (Jul 20, 2020)

Ziv said:


> I wonder why Billings didn't get in there. Hard to believe that both the city manager and a substantial portion of the population wouldn't be supporting this.


May be because, unlike some of the smaller towns along the way, they have air service? Not sure...just a guess....


----------

