# Any possibility of Amtrak serving South Dakota?



## railgeekteen (Sep 5, 2020)

The state has no trains and hasn't for decades, and I've never heard of any plans to bring trains back there. What routes would be possible?


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 5, 2020)

The state itself does not seem interested in passenger rail. Just as Ohio isn't. There won't be any service until the state asks for it, then. If any route would be viable, it might be Rapid City in the west to Sioux City in the east, but remember: South Dakota is not the most populous state, either.


----------



## joelkfla (Sep 5, 2020)

Palmetto said:


> South Dakota is not the most popular state, either.


Do you mean nobody wants to go to SD, or did you mean populous?


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 5, 2020)

joelkfla said:


> Do you mean nobody wants to go to SD, or did you mean populous?



I meant "populous", and I corrected it. Thanks!!


----------



## bms (Sep 5, 2020)

The Minnesota DOT's Rail Plan of 2015 proposed a 79 mph line from the Twin Cities to Sioux Falls, S.D. That line could eventually be continued to Omaha.

I don't think service from Sioux Falls to Rapid City would ever happen because the tracks you would need to head west from Sioux Falls have been removed.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 5, 2020)

Palmetto said:


> The state itself does not seem interested in passenger rail. Just as Ohio isn't.



There is interest among a small minority of Ohio's citizens. There isn't interest when a certain political party has control of the levers of State government. We had a Governor in 2007-2011 who did support the concept of rail service between Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati. Had he won a second term, it's possible, but unlikely given our conservative General Assembly, that some of the plans might have come to fruition.


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 5, 2020)

bms said:


> The Minnesota DOT's Rail Plan of 2015 proposed a 79 mph line from the Twin Cities to Sioux Falls, S.D. That line could eventually be continued to Omaha.
> 
> I don't think service from Sioux Falls to Rapid City would ever happen because the tracks you would need to head west from Sioux Falls have been removed.



I don't think that's correct. RCP&E runs east, thru Pierre, all the way to Tracy, MN, southwest of Minneapolis. That being said, I just think that the demand is not there to support passenger train service. It would be great, of course, but can't see it happening.


----------



## bms (Sep 5, 2020)

Palmetto said:


> I don't think that's correct. RCP&E runs east, thru Pierre, all the way to Tracy, MN, southwest of Minneapolis. That being said, I just think that the demand is not there to support passenger train service. It would be great, of course, but can't see it happening.



I stand corrected!


----------



## flitcraft (Sep 5, 2020)

Is there any political will in South Dakota for rail? I tend to doubt it. Too bad, though.


----------



## WWW (Sep 6, 2020)

If they had good tracks and a locomotive and 1 coach car and did distance spacing I doubt that they could fill that car for a profit.
The population centers are Sioux Falls and Rapid City some 300 miles apart.
In between are farm and badlands - you might pick-up a prairie dog on a whistle stop occasionally.
Just what is needed another subsidized railroad doomed for bankruptcy from the git go.
This is not one of those build it and they will come !
Consenses let Jack Rabbit Bus Lines handle the traffic - Interstate Highway 90 works well.


----------



## railiner (Sep 6, 2020)

Friends-261 said:


> Consenses let Jack Rabbit Bus Lines handle the traffic - Interstate Highway 90 works well.


Jack Rabbit has been gone for a long time...Jefferson Lines took over some of their routes....


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 6, 2020)

railiner said:


> Jack Rabbit has been gone for a long time...Jefferson Lines took over some of their routes....



I would say that Jefferson has the state quite well covered.


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 6, 2020)

As already mentioned, the easiest route to put in place, and the one with most online traffic, is one that either goes to Sioux Falls, or passes through it on its way from Minneapolis to Omaha. But that only "serves South Dakota" the way the Empire Builder "serves Idaho" now.

There aren't many ways to run a train-to-somewhere-else across the state.

The old Milwaukee Road line through Aberdeen and Mobridge still exists; theoretically a restored North Coast Hiawatha could operate through South Dakota instead of through Bismarck. (But absent a Congressional mandate for Amtrak to serve all 48 contiguous states - why would you want to route it that way?)

The one big chance for new service to somewhere other than Sioux Falls, IMO, was when the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern was planning a major track upgrade along with their proposed extension to the Powder River Basin coal fields. If that upgrade had happened, service all the way across the state at competitive speeds would have been possible, and even Minneapolis-Rapid City-Denver (switching to BN in northwestern Nebraska) might have been feasible if the political will existed.

Come to think of it, I wonder if the promise of passenger service would have helped placate the cities that objected to DM&E's increased freight service.

Purely coincidentally, it was one Joseph Boardman who nixed the FRA loan that was going to pay for the DM&E expansion.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 6, 2020)

Once upon a time, there was a C&NW train that ran from Chicago to Mankato, Minnesota with an extension (I don't think it was daily, however) to Rapid City. I rode that trip one Summer while visiting Rochester, MN and found it to be interesting from a scenic stand point. The route went through Pierre and Wall and I got to see the Badlands and the Black Hills including the Mt. Rushmore National Monument. I think the equipment was a Coach, maybe 2, a Pullman sleeper, and a Cafe/Lounge Car. The train may have originally been called the Dakota 400 (that's why I chose my AU Forum name), but I think when I rode on the train, it was called the Chicago & Black Hills Special.


----------



## Barb Stout (Sep 6, 2020)

Palmetto said:


> I would say that Jefferson has the state quite well covered.
> View attachment 19022


So ironic. My SD relatives traveled a lot between Aberdeen and Huron. If they had to depend on bus service, look at the round about way they would have had to go.


----------



## hlcteacher (Sep 6, 2020)

yep


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 6, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> So ironic. My SD relatives traveled a lot between Aberdeen and Huron. If they had to depend on bus service, look at the round about way they would have had to go.



After I wrote what I did, I said to myself that S. Dakota is a big state. The routes shown on the map really don't cover that state all that well, but they do cover what appears to be the more populous areas.


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Sep 6, 2020)

The first question is? Where are the Railroad tracks. Then you can start talk about service plans after.


----------



## railiner (Sep 6, 2020)

Barb Stout said:


> So ironic. My SD relatives traveled a lot between Aberdeen and Huron. If they had to depend on bus service, look at the round about way they would have had to go.


Up until sometime in the '70's, there were a lot more intercity bus routes to and thru South Dakota...
It was served by Jack Rabbit, Greyhound, Intercity, Arrow and Black Hills Stageline, Continental Trailways, and a few "short lines" like PYN, etc...


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 7, 2020)

bms said:


> The Minnesota DOT's Rail Plan of 2015 proposed a 79 mph line from the Twin Cities to Sioux Falls, S.D. That line could eventually be continued to Omaha.
> 
> I don't think service from Sioux Falls to Rapid City would ever happen because the tracks you would need to head west from Sioux Falls have been removed.


When I looked into this, it looked feasible to run a daylight Omaha<>Sioux Falls<>St. Paul train that would connect from Train 6 to Trains 7/27 and from Trains 8/28 to Train 5. That was in regard to the question that if Amtrak were to be required to serve the largest population center of each of the 48 contiguous states, what might have a chance of working for SD?


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 7, 2020)

Willbridge said:


> That was in regard to the question that if Amtrak were to be required to serve the largest population center of each of the 48 contiguous states, what might have a chance of working for SD?



That's quite an interesting question. Was it posed online somewhere, with various solutions proposed for it? Or just an internal question?

I have played around with variations on it - along the lines of "must enhance existing service to every state" - but the largest population center bit adds a new twist.


----------



## Palmetto (Sep 7, 2020)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> The first question is? Where are the Railroad tracks. Then you can start talk about service plans after.



Here's the map

https://dot.sd.gov/media/documents/railmap.pdf


----------



## jis (Sep 7, 2020)

And here is a good reference to a list of cities in South Dakota with their populations:






List of cities in South Dakota - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org





Interesting that there is only one city in S. Dakota with a population greater than 100,000 and only 5 with a population greater than 20,000, and the capital is not among them.

The only reasonable hope of serving a city by a train passing through S. Dakota would appear to be Sioux Falls and Aberdeen, and maybe Brookings. The top five cities together have a population of around 350,000. Of them the only line serving Rapid City do not go to anywhere in particular beyond Rapid City, so the onlt way to serve it is with a train that terminates and turns there. That one could also serve Pierre I suppose. But it is doubtful that it will be able to earn its keep, even at a 30% of cost level.


----------



## railiner (Sep 7, 2020)

I still believe that before any Amtrak train serves South Dakota, they should run a train Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati...not what we're discussing, I'm aware, but just to illustrate there are far more routes deserving of rail passenger service, before they think about going to South Dakota.


----------



## Qapla (Sep 7, 2020)

Or - restore NOL to JAX to connect the east-west coast like it used to be


----------



## me_little_me (Sep 8, 2020)

Atlanta to Florida
Atlanta to Chattanooga, Cincinnati, Chicago
Daytime Cincinnati to Chicago
Michigan to Toronto
Denver to Albuquerque
Albuquerque to El Paso
SLC to Las Vegas


----------



## jis (Sep 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> I still believe that before any Amtrak train serves South Dakota, they should run a train Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati...not what we're discussing, I'm aware, but just to illustrate there are far more routes deserving of rail passenger service, before they think about going to South Dakota.





Qapla said:


> Or - restore NOL to JAX to connect the east-west coast like it used to be





me_little_me said:


> Atlanta to Florida
> Atlanta to Chattanooga, Cincinnati, Chicago
> Daytime Cincinnati to Chicago
> Michigan to Toronto
> ...


So to summarize, it is quite difficult to justify adding service to South Dakota, specially given that the state has never expressed any interest even in words, let alone resources, when there are dozens of other routes where there is greater interest sometimes backed with resources and enthusiastic backing from local politicians in many cases.

But as a hypothetical, should one be given a project to determine what service in S Dakota might make sense, we have discussed the possibilities, noting all along that usage will probably be pretty thin.


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> I still believe that before any Amtrak train serves South Dakota, they should run a train Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati...not what we're discussing, I'm aware, but just to illustrate there are far more routes deserving of rail passenger service, before they think about going to South Dakota.



No argument there.

But there's a similarity between the two states, in that neither is likely to go ahead with state-supported service on their own anytime soon: the only way there will be service to Columbus or to South Dakota (or Boise or, say, Knoxville) is if some new national-network requirement requires service to both places.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 8, 2020)

Siegmund said:


> the only way there will be service to Columbus or to South Dakota (or Boise or, say, Knoxville) is if some new national-network requirement requires service to both places.



Or, if there is a change in the priorities of those who control the levers of State government.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 8, 2020)

railiner said:


> I still believe that before any Amtrak train serves South Dakota, they should run a train Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati...not what we're discussing, I'm aware, but just to illustrate there are far more routes deserving of rail passenger service, before they think about going to South Dakota.



And, please include Dayton in that route!


----------



## railiner (Sep 8, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> And, please include Dayton in that route!


Why not? Might as well throw in Akron and Canton? Ohio has lots of populous cities that at one time enjoyed good rail service....


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 9, 2020)

railiner said:


> Why not? Might as well throw in Akron and Canton? Ohio has lots of populous cities that at one time enjoyed good rail service....



I agree. The most recent route that was under consideration was a Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati route. To add Akron and Canton to that would be doable, but would probably be a bit of a deviation slightly Southeast from Cleveland and then from Akron/Canton West to Columbus.


----------



## crescent-zephyr (Sep 9, 2020)

jis said:


> And here is a good reference to a list of cities in South Dakota with their populations:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I’ve been to brookings many time for business. I would take the zephyr to Omaha and catch Jefferson lines north. On the way back I would take Jefferson lines north to Fargo and catch the empire builder. Once I went by way of Kansas City on the Chief when returning from work in California, that connection was VERY close and I didn’t want to chance that one ever again. Ha.


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 10, 2020)

Siegmund said:


> That's quite an interesting question. Was it posed online somewhere, with various solutions proposed for it? Or just an internal question?
> 
> I have played around with variations on it - along the lines of "must enhance existing service to every state" - but the largest population center bit adds a new twist.


I think it was in the early years, for me and Amtrak, when I was with Oregon DOT. As you may recall, the original Amtrak plan called for there to be no service in Oregon. Portland was slated to go from 7½ train departures a day to zero. One of the fallacies of the Gardner era and others from the dawn of Amtrak has been the idea that the states should set up corridor services in a vacuum. From the beginning we had support from our governor for corridor developments, interline bus services, intermodal terminals as primarily state and local responsibilities, but we held that the national government should provide a network that these things could be attached to.


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 10, 2020)

railiner said:


> Why not? Might as well throw in Akron and Canton? Ohio has lots of populous cities that at one time enjoyed good rail service....


In 1969 I rode the E-L from Marion, Ohio Union Station to Hoboken Terminal and they still had a Youngstown <> Hoboken sleeper. People were using it.


----------



## jis (Sep 11, 2020)

Amtrak's Broadway Limited operated briefly through Youngstown and Akron. I recall traveling on it a couple of times during that period.


----------



## railiner (Sep 11, 2020)

jis said:


> Amtrak's Broadway Limited operated briefly through Youngstown and Akron. I recall traveling on it a couple of times during that period.


That was when the historic PRR route thru Canton, Crestline, and Lima, was downgraded to the point they could no longer maintain the schedule, they shifted over to the old B&O routing...


----------



## coleallen (Sep 12, 2020)

Palmetto said:


> The state itself does not seem interested in passenger rail. Just as Ohio isn't. There won't be any service until the state asks for it, then. If any route would be viable, it might be Rapid City in the west to Sioux City in the east, but remember: South Dakota is not the most populous state, either.


Possibly for Mt. Rushmore, but I've looked into it and the tracks that run through Rapid City are not connected to any other track. Those tracks have a dead-end at a factory west of there.


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 12, 2020)

coleallen said:


> Possibly for Mt. Rushmore, but I've looked into it and the tracks that run through Rapid City are not connected to any other track. Those tracks have a dead-end at a factory west of there.



That is what I recall many years ago when I rode that C&NW train from Rochester, MN to Rapid City. There was no train service of any type that I could determine West of Rapid City.


----------



## WWW (Sep 12, 2020)

Strange in all those dead end tracks you never see the train set reversed - a wye or a turntable -
or does the train simply reverse itself all the way back to where it came from ?
Yeah even in dem Hollywood train classics - how does the train automatically turn around and go back ?
Maybe the back stage set façade it taken down and reconstructed on the other side of the tracks - a one way train to nowhere.

In all those wide open mountain prairie spaces Wyoming does not have much to offer along the Montana border west of S D
except for those coal trains.
North of that there was the Great Northern - Northern Pacific and the Milwaukee Road
South of that the Union Pacific semi following I80.

Railroad tracks over the Rockies as well as the Sierras Cascades and other ranges was an impressive effort of engineering.

The wild west beautiful country to view but to build a railroad just to view it questionable - but build it and they will come !


----------



## jis (Sep 12, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> That is what I recall many years ago when I rode that C&NW train from Rochester, MN to Rapid City. There was no train service of any type that I could determine West of Rapid City.


As @coelallen says, the line ends a little beyond Rapid City at a few factory and mine sidings. I have driven to its end. The only other route out of Rapid City is to the south.


----------



## Siegmund (Sep 12, 2020)

Dakota 400 said:


> That is what I recall many years ago when I rode that C&NW train from Rochester, MN to Rapid City. There was no train service of any type that I could determine West of Rapid City.



In the ancient past, before Pactola Dam was built, there was a line up Rapid Creek to Mystic. Getting from Rapid City to Mt. Rushmore by train would have involved 60 track miles, on 3 different trains on 2 different railroads (Rapid City - Silver City - Mystic, then south to Hill City, then east along the branch that is still a tourist railroad), to cover 15 miles as crow flies. It was never a practical alternative.

The lines west of Rapid City were built for mining - two separate sets of them, C&NW coming into Deadwood from the north and CB&Q from the south, plus some shortlines.

Through service to anywhere, 100 years ago or now, requires a sharp left turn in Rapid City.


----------



## neroden (Sep 13, 2020)

railiner said:


> Why not? Might as well throw in Akron and Canton? Ohio has lots of populous cities that at one time enjoyed good rail service....


While we're talking Ohio, Youngstown, too. Viable routes, given support and funding, include Detroit-Toledo, Cleveland-Columbus-Dayton-Cincinnati, Cleveland-Akron-Canton, Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Cleveland, and of course more service Buffalo-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago...

Ohio is more densely populated than France and can support a rail network as extensive as France. (South Dakota isn't.)


----------



## dlagrua (Sep 13, 2020)

South Dakota currently has two long freight RR lines. One goes East to West and I believe was the C&NW now the Rapid City Pierre and Eastern that travels East to West across the center of the state and the Dakota Southern (former Milwaukee Road) that has trackage from Mitchell to Kadoka but the small section that once went across the Badlands to Rapid City is currently rail-banked. The Dakota Southern service is currently being restored and its usable as far as Presho.
The final train to use the Dakota Southern Route was the Sioux passenger train but that was discontinued in the 1950's
Freight left in the 1980's. I followed the DS line by car as it parallels Rt 90. When train service was halted it left many ghost towns along that route. I can see farms and grain trains returning in the South part of South Dakota but passenger service would be a stretch. Most of the small towns along that route died or nearly died when the train left so there is probably no demand for passenger service.


----------



## Qapla (Sep 14, 2020)

dlagrua said:


> Most of the small towns along that route died or nearly died when the train left so there is probably no demand for passenger service.



Proof that passenger trains bring money into an area they pass through - a good reason to keep them running even if they don't "make a profit" (since they are Gov't owned) because the profit is the money the communities take in - like Mathews said


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 14, 2020)

Qapla said:


> Proof that passenger trains bring money into an area they pass through - a good reason to keep them running even if they don't "make a profit" (since they are Gov't owned) because the profit is the money the communities take in - like Mathews said



Correlation or causation? Did the towns die because the train left, or did the train leave because the towns died?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Sep 14, 2020)

A parallel highway is also a reason why a railroad would fail, but a boom for the towns along the route.


----------



## Barb Stout (Sep 14, 2020)

dlagrua said:


> Freight left in the 1980's. I followed the DS line by car as it parallels Rt 90. When train service was halted it left many ghost towns along that route. I can see farms and grain trains returning in the South part of South Dakota but passenger service would be a stretch. Most of the small towns along that route died or nearly died when the train left so there is probably no demand for passenger service.


Farms left?


----------



## Qapla (Sep 14, 2020)

Trogdor said:


> Correlation or causation? Did the towns die because the train left, or did the train leave because the towns died?



As with all statistics, you can make the answer fit your agenda/position.

If you're a train advocate - the towns died when the trains left
If you're train hater - the trains left because the towns died


----------



## Dakota 400 (Sep 14, 2020)

neroden said:


> Ohio is more densely populated than France and can support a rail network as extensive as France. (South Dakota isn't.)



2007-2011, I don't recall that either South Dakota or France being mentioned about population density that could support a simple rail network in Ohio, but that point was made.


----------



## Trogdor (Sep 15, 2020)

Qapla said:


> As with all statistics, you can make the answer fit your agenda/position.
> 
> If you're a train advocate - the towns died when the trains left
> If you're train hater - the trains left because the towns died



Nothing to do with being an “advocate” or a “hater.” If one does the research (which, granted, I have not, because the history of South Dakota towns isn’t really one of my interests), I’m sure one can actually trace the economic development of towns and railroads in the area.

As Just-Thinking-51 noted, development of a highway could cause railroad service to die. Development of highways can also change the population growth and travel patterns in ways that are unfavorable to the small towns the railroads serve. Same with other technology and infrastructure, which may have been more readily available in cities than in small towns whose primary way in/out was the railroad.

And yes, there probably were a few places that only existed because 120 years ago you needed a place to service steam locomotive, but otherwise, there was no real reason to have a collection of people there (for the same reason that vast amounts of other nearby locations never had a town at all, and just remained undeveloped land which, honestly, is perfectly fine).


----------



## Anthony V (Sep 15, 2020)

The way I see it, the most feasible way for Amtrak to serve South Dakota would be with a train running from Sioux Falls to Sioux City and Omaha, where it would connect with the California Zephyr. Connections to LD trains are important for the survival of corridors. This corridor would also have to be multi-frequency to be worthwhile. Due to the low population on the route, I don't even see this proposal happening.


----------



## Willbridge (Sep 16, 2020)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> A parallel highway is also a reason why a railroad would fail, but a boom for the towns along the route.


If it's a limited access highway, for example, the Interstate network, there will be a boom for some points and not the others. The faster access to larger centers with their variety of services and jobs sucks the life out of the weaker communities. That is often true with conventional highway improvements. And yes, Stilgoes' _Metropolitan Corridor _describes the rail age equivalent experience.

This has been going on since the dawn of the highway industrial complex in the WWI era, so a lot of data and anecdotes are available. What also has not changed is that elected officials and project promoters are unwilling to face the fact that they can't have the Main Street that they remember from childhood AND drive to the Wal-Mart in a regional center.

Changes in the cost of trucking are also part of this, particularly in a state like South Dakota, or in the Canadian prairies. The Denver Art Museum had a photo exhibit a few years ago of Canadian prairie town centres. The docent admitted that she was puzzled by one especially grim looking town versus another that looked prosperous. I went home and pulled out an old _Official Guide _and the grim one was on a classic prairie grain collection line with Mixed Train service at one time, but was gone now. The prosperous one was on the CN main line, with a big new elevator. I am sure that the folks in the grim one cheered the improvements in their highway and never gave a thought to the fact that it would divert farmers and their Main Street spending to the main line elevator.


----------

