# Bringing back the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha?



## GlobalistPotato (May 13, 2011)

You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.

Southern Montana wants the North Coast Hiawatha. Southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon and Colorado want the Pioneer. As part of PRIIA, Amtrak did a study into restoring such service. The results weren't promising. But yet passenger rail advocates there disagree with Amtrak and say that they underestimated ridership numbers.

This is the map of the proposed routes: http://www.sandpoint...ute_map_800.gif

And the pioneer: http://juckins.net/m...sed_pioneer.gif

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

I don't think so. If I could aggressively fund and expand Amtrak, I would bring back those routes, but they'd be low on my priority list, due to low ridership.

If these states want to bring back service, then it should either be part of a mutli-state subsidized train, or part of a series of new and expanded LD routes, probably including CHI-FL, The Broadway Limited route, the Lone Star route and TX-CO, along with upgrades and improvements to the existing LD trains.

When it comes to the NCH, the advocates of the train are pointing out that there is very little air or bus service to Southern Montana, so an Amtrak train would seize a large share of the long-distance market.

But is the market in Southern Montana big enough anyway? I don't think it's that big, and just simply spending money on either planes or trains to sasitify small-state senators isn't too far from the "Bridge to Nowhere", which was sold on access reasons to that small community.

I don't want Amtrak to come under criticism for running "trains to nowhere", as much as people are saying already.


----------



## Trogdor (May 13, 2011)

The Pioneer would be a good route to have, and would add a connection from the Northwest to the center of the US. Creating a mini hub in Denver would be nice, too, then, with trains to Texas and New Mexico connecting with the Pioneer and California Zephyr.

The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.


----------



## jis (May 13, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.


The North Coast Hiawatha route could be run as a section of the Empire Builder as was the case for a while before it disappeared. It would be hard to justify it as a totally separate train.


----------



## Trogdor (May 13, 2011)

jis said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.
> ...


It would have to be a totally separate train through North Dakota and Montana, where one route would basically cannibalize the other. The only parts of the route where they could operate together would be CHI-MSP, and SPK-SEA or PDX, where, one could argue, additional frequency could actually be justified.


----------



## RCrierie (May 13, 2011)

My personal opinion:

No.

Not unless the state governments involve decide to subsidize 80% or more of the route's operating costs. Right now Amtrak is very critically limited by rolling stock levels. Adding another route will dilute the pool of equipment available for other routes and hurt attempts to raise their fare recovery levels.


----------



## trainviews (May 13, 2011)

> Is bringing back these routes a good idea?


In short - no - at least not from a business perspective.

Seen locally though, from small or rural communities with no other transportation alternatives than driving for hours or using a local airport with often infrequent and expensive service, the efforts to bring back the train is understandable, but honestly in the big picture still using a lot of money on just a few people, when large populations in other parts of the country are just as underserved.

Generally speaking trains make most sense in medium length corridors. Services under 3-4 hours will usually kill the air market and be an attractive alternative to driving, especially if the speed is not too uncompetitive.

Runs up to a bit more than double of that will attract significant ridership not least if there is several midsized stops on the way, which might not have close by larger airport. Overnight runs between larger cities are also attractive.

All Amtraks LD routes (except the auto train) are losing between 20 and 50 cents per passenger mile (YTD, March 2011 monthly performance report). One train a day runs over distances taking multiple days are expensive to run and virtually impossible to get a good economy in. Running long stretches through very lightly populated areas with no significant local one-town-to-the-next-markets to fill up seats exacerbates this problem. And on a third of the way any market is more or less killed because they have to be served at odd hours.

Instead the money and the focus should be on getting faster and more frequent service in alredy served corridors, and getting service into unserved corridors with large potential. That will get many more riders and contribute much more to solve the nation's transportation problems.

The most underserved areas today, when you factor in population size and density is in my oppinion the Southeast and Texas. The potential in the Texas triangle is obvious. I also think Atlanta screams to be developed as a hub for services to Memphis, Nashville, Macon, Charleston, Savannah and north Florida, as well as decent service on the route of the Crescent. The LA-Las Vegas-Phoenix triangle is also worth looking into, and so is quite a few in the Midwest.

Yes I know that states like Georgia and Texas have done nothing to advance train service, but that is another discussion and doesn't make the potential for trains there any smaller. On the other hand states like Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina are developing excactly that sort of service, often with considerable succes in spite of the fact that the current round of speed upgrades haven't started kicking in yet.


----------



## Gratt (May 13, 2011)

jis said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > The North Coast Hiawatha, on the other hand, adds practically nothing to the overall connectivity of the system, and really would just serve to cannibalize the Empire Builder's traffic.
> ...



I believe the Amtrak report for the NCH said it would do little to affect the traffic level of the EB.

IMHO the NCH would be a better Montana train than the current EB. As for funding like all LD trains I think the operating costs should come from Amtrak but any upfront costs and station upkeep should come from federal/state/local funding.

As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.


----------



## jis (May 13, 2011)

RCrierie said:


> My personal opinion:
> 
> No.
> 
> Not unless the state governments involve decide to subsidize 80% or more of the route's operating costs. Right now Amtrak is very critically limited by rolling stock levels. Adding another route will dilute the pool of equipment available for other routes and hurt attempts to raise their fare recovery levels.


Oh yeah, none of this will happen unless the state or someone else or Congress decides to acquire more rolling stock. Actually Montana and North Dakota could get together and acquire two trainsets and run essentially a Coach/Lounge train from Whitefish/Kalispell to Fargo via Glacier, Great Falls, Billings, Miles City, Glendive, Bismarck, suitably connecting with the Empire Builder, ideally at both ends if at all possible.


----------



## RCrierie (May 13, 2011)

trainviews said:


> All Amtraks LD routes (except the auto train) are losing between 20 and 50 cents per passenger mile (YTD, March 2011 monthly performance report


I think two reasons why Auto Train works are:

1.) It is a LIMITED route -- it stops at just two stations. You thereby save a lot of money on maintenance of the stations and staffing them, along with the wear and tear on the engines from braking at each station and then accelerating. Empire Builder has 46 stations, of which 24 are staffed. Even if we assume two people at each station, that's 92 personnel amtrak has to pay salaries and benefits to on the EB route for just the stations.

2.) Vehicle transportation charges. In effect, Auto Train acts as a nearly 100% sleeper route, since even if you are paying for coach, you still need to bring your vehicle with you.

It makes me wonder if an EMPIRE BUILDER LIMITED consist that runs bi-weekly with 100% sleeper cars and stops at only the following stations:

Chicago

East or West Glacier (depending on season)

Seattle

would be profitable.

Other advantages of reducing the station/stop count is that you can now extend the time at a layover to a credible amount, like maybe 45-60 minutes, which is enough to wander the area around the station, get a decent meal, shop etc before returning to the train. You can't do that with the current "smoke break" standard.

Also; the extended layover means that there's enough time for the train to be restocked with a larger amount of consumables like food. There's also the possibility of increased quality service, since if something broke, like a television or door, there would be enough time to try and attempt a credible repair during the layover.

You could also share the consist by having it become the Coast Starlight Limited then the Southwest Chief Limited, doing a loop before returning to Chicago to begin again. This would prevent you from having to find a much larger amount of cars to create a LIMITED service on the other routes.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (May 13, 2011)

Gratt said:


> As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.


That is a big advantage, but Amtrak said that the Pioneer would have the lowest farebox recovery ratio of ALL long distance trains (2nd worst if it was extended to Seattle).

Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled.

I agree, there are markets with greater potential, like HOU-DAL-DEN, or CHI-ATL-MIA. Or LAX-VEG.

There are some people who advocate for the NCH as a way to serve Fargo at better times, however Fargo can be served better by having a Carolian-style train from Grand Forks to Chicago, departing the origin points at like 7:00 am and arriving at the destination at 10:00 pm. That'd cost less to create and would have a MUCH better farebox ratio.


----------



## henryj (May 13, 2011)

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.


----------



## HoosierStater (May 13, 2011)

I'm all for bringing back whatever trains Amtrak can.

That said, Amtrak's priorities ought to be larger markets than what's in southern Montana. The Pioneer adding service to Denver would be an asset, but before even that, Amtrak would probably be better off looking at entering some other markets, like Las Vegas, Columbus (Ohio), Louisville, and Nashville (for starters, there's probably more that could be added!). Some other cities are like Denver, and ought to have more service than they do: Cleveland, Cincinnati, Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix (service that actually goes there!). Daily Cardinals and Sunset Limiteds would be a good use of any additional capacity that comes into Amtrak's hands, as well as the Desert Wind, Pioneer (perhaps these two combined?), and a train that runs, say, Chicago-Indy-Louisville-Nashville-Chattanooga-Atlanta-somewhere in Florida (would this be a resurrected Floridian? Not sure of that train's route). Not sure about the Desert Wind and Pioneer, but these other expansions have other difficulties. The Cardinal and Sunset Limited's difficulties have been mentioned a few times on this forum. As for the Chicago-Florida service, I'm not sure if the tracks are actually all there, and the Indy-Louisville tracks (used by the old Kentucky Cardinal) were atrocious for passenger service. These would be the main _long distance_ additions I'd like to see to the network. (There's some corridor stuff that would be good additions in my opinion as well.)

Of course, I have no idea where the money, staff, rolling stock, and host RR permissions are going to come from for these. I hope, though, that somewhere at Amtrak is a list of possibilities like we discuss, services that can be started (or at least examined) when possible.


----------



## NorthCoastHiawatha (May 13, 2011)

henryj said:


> North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.


I don't think the NCH is necessarily nuts as it would run through most of Montana's major cities.


----------



## jis (May 13, 2011)

NorthCoastHiawatha said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.
> ...


Ironically, usually when people foam and froth over their own favorite non-existent train that will most likely never exist, they always quote the total population that the route covers to justify the route. By that measure actually between the EB and the NCH actually it is the EB that's nuts.  But it exists!


----------



## GlobalistPotato (May 13, 2011)

jis said:


> NorthCoastHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


And that's why I-90 is routed parallel to the NCH route! :lol:

Also, keep in mind that the Empire Builder is being severed by a market that doesn't include competition from I-90.

Of course, the "major cities" in Montana or Idaho aren't that big. If they became one of the "booming western cities" like Denver, Albuquerque, Salt Lake City, Phoenix or Las Vegas, then I could see rerouting an existing Amtrak train to the booming city or even creating a new route. But I don't see that happening any time soon. SO...


----------



## Anderson (May 14, 2011)

A second CHI-MSP frequency wouldn't be a bad idea. Granted, Wisconsin would probably get in the way...but having the train make no stops from Milwaukee to the MN border might drop a hint (MKE is likely a necessary stop from a business standpoint, and it would be a "shared" stop with the Hiawathas, so you're diluting _very_ little cost onto the train there). Particularly with the Northern Lights Express coming into the picture...CHI-MSP is a must as a link, and simply making the train a "limited" operation in most of WI until Walker gets booted (something that I suspect is coming) might drop a much-needed hint that he can stop the local trains but not the regional plans.

The problem is that from MSP to Spokane, there's no major market to speak of and no clear sign of anything requiring a second train to link markets that couldn't be more efficiently accomplished with a spare coach and/or sleeper on the Empire Builder. So the NCH is out IMHO.

That brings us to the Pioneer. I like the idea of building up Denver as a second-tier hub (not unlike LA or Philly, rather than the "big three" of WAS, NYP, and CHI) with corridor service in Colorado proper augmented by a better selection of LD trains (potentially including a substantial CHI-DEN-only section on the CZ), but while I like the idea of the Pioneer, I think you need to build up the Denver-area market first with that corridor service I mentioned _first_. The Pioneer requires enough "other" service that it's a questionable investment from what I can tell. It forms a key link...but it's also worth noting that alone, it's a weak link. Add in some other stuff out of Denver (Denver-Texas and Denver-KCY-STL in particular) and you have a sturdier web.

Edit: One thought that leaps to mind is running three trains from the east into Denver (CHI-Omaha-DEN/CZ; [CHI?-]STL-KCY-DEN; and Dallas/Fort Worth [possibly down to Houston or San Antonio]-Denver) and three west out of Denver (The CZ, the Pioneer, and the Desert Wind...with two of the three potentially running together until SLC). You'd probably need to make a moderate layover to allow practical interchanging in Denver...and to schedule the eastern end times based on getting those trains into Denver in the morning. But a secondary hub in Denver makes sense if you route a lot of West Coast-bound traffic through it. The biggest risk with this is cascading chaos when one of the eastern trains is late so that people can't make their switch.

One counter: Is it possible that the Pioneer could create a cannibalization of Empire Builder business? How much traffic on that route is through (most of the way, at least) versus terminating in Portland (or might you lose out of the Columbia Valley through two trains going through there)?


----------



## JayPea (May 14, 2011)

One thing to consider about the Hiawatha, not that I think it's a great idea, is that it would, with the help of shuttle buses, give travelers much closer access to Yellowstone and to a lesser extent Grand Tetons National Park. I wonder if they would be as big a draw as Glacier Park under that scenario. Also, Spokane should benefit from more Amtrak service, particularly if a Hiawatha can be scheduled at more passenger-friendly hours than the EB currently is. For awhile, the Hiawatha did run through Spokane in the daylight hours. Most travelers, if they think of Spokane at all, think of it only as the place the westbound Empire Builder splits into the Seattle and Portland sections, and the place that both eastbound Builders join forces. Combining populations of the metro Spokane area and its north Idaho neighbor Coeur d'Alene gives the area about 610,000 people, not exactly a major metro area but not chump change either. If the Hiawatha is run to Seattle by way of Pasco, Yakima, and Stampede Pass, that would restore service to Yakima, currently the largest city in Washington without Amtrak service, college town Ellensburg, and, if so desired, the Seattle suburb of Auburn.

All that said, if I had my choice to pick which would be the better route, I'd go for the Pioneer.


----------



## railiner (May 14, 2011)

trainviews said:


> > Is bringing back these routes a good idea?
> 
> 
> In short - no - at least not from a business perspective.
> ...


Just curious, are you a 'transplant'? You have an amazing knowledge of US transportation and geography, otherwise!


----------



## railiner (May 14, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> Gratt said:
> 
> 
> > As for the Pioneer its #1 advantage is that it would make 4 likely Republican senators very pro Amtrak, that is something that can not be understated.
> ...


How about bringing back the Northstar (Chicago-St. Paul-Duluth) on an all-day schedule instead of its former overnight one? No sleepers, and the coaches and lounge/dinette would serve three meals enroute making it economically feasible. It would leave and arrive CHI early and late enough not to worry about long haul connections so its schedule being independent could be more reliable. For those that say it would lose potential revenue from said lack of connections, there is still the EB availabel with perhaps an added 'thruway' bus from MSP to Duluth, if the demand is there.


----------



## railiner (May 14, 2011)

Before spending money on restoring the Pioneer on its long route, I would first restore the Desert Wind between SLC, Las Vegas, and LAX. It's a much shorter route, would require no new crew bases (SLC and LAX could cover it), would keep some direct Colorado to LAX thru route that will be lost if/when the Chief it rerouted to the 'Transcon'.


----------



## Anderson (May 14, 2011)

Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading _to_ Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even _theoretically _have.

There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).

It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even _trying_. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even _trying_ this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.


----------



## railiner (May 14, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading _to_ Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even _theoretically _have.
> 
> There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).
> 
> It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even _trying_. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even _trying_ this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.


Everything you say makes good sense. It would be a challenge however, to educate an entire generation (or two), of business travelers that could take advantage of your proposal to discard their beloved quick flights and comfortable business hotels with all their amenities...


----------



## GlobalistPotato (May 14, 2011)

railiner said:


> GlobalistPotato said:
> 
> 
> > Gratt said:
> ...



Sure, let's do both of our plans.


----------



## railiner (May 14, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> railiner said:
> 
> 
> > GlobalistPotato said:
> ...


Okay!

And add a section of the new "Northstar" to serve Fargo, Grand Forks, and Winnipeg.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (May 14, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading _to_ Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even _theoretically _have.
> 
> There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).
> 
> It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even _trying_. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even _trying_ this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.



And as you know from the old Official Guide, the country used to be full of overnight business friendly schedules. Of course the Atlanta to Washington leg of today's Crescent is ideal for that.


----------



## trainman74 (May 15, 2011)

Anderson said:


> Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even _theoretically _have.


From 1981-83, there was a state-supported train, the Spirit of California, that ran LAX-OAK-SAC on an overnight schedule. The return of that train has occasionally been studied/proposed, but California's budget problems presumably make that a no-go for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2011)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading _to_ Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even _theoretically _have.
> ...


At least in the East (and on the West Coast to a lesser extent), most markets with an 8-12 hour trip had an overnight train...or a daylight train with a full diner (witness the Pennsy/NY,NH,&H services from Boston to DC). This is a lot of what I'm looking at.

And actually, the Northstar wouldn't be a bad move...if you could get MN to spring for an extra set of cars with re-instituting it (there are plans to put the MSP-Duluth train back together), you could simply extend a morning train down to Chicago while arranging for one of the evening trains to be a set of equipment turned in Chicago.

As to "educating" the business community, there _are_ markets where the airfares are astronomical and where you could actually fight the airlines on cost and win. Des Moines is a classic example...a short-notice flight from Des Moines to Chicago without a weekend stay can clock over $1000, and even with a week of notice you're looking at $650+. Now, Des Moines is a particularly bad case on the airline front...but as much as that city is trying to lure airlines in with deals, it'd probably just be easier to do a deal with Amtrak. Other places (like Omaha) aren't nearly as bad, but then you're slapping on two hours of time to get to the airport...at that point, you're breaking even_ at best_ with the airplane versus a solid rail service in terms of time, and having to throw an extra $X into getting _to_ the airport.

Now, at somewhere in the six-seven hour range Des Moines-Chicago isn't an overnight market (though you could run Omaha-Chicago as one at eight hours or so), though with good track you could make it a decent run with 2-3 round trips per day...but (at least on paper) you could easily piggyback Des Moines onto a KCY-DAL train (and I am quietly cursing the ICC for letting The Rock dump the Minneapolis-Kansas City train when they did). The biggest problem is that it wouldn't line up with timetables. The objective, IMHO, would be to run a "big city" connection while trying to arrange it to hit places with lousy air markets at sane hours in the process (I'm thinking of Detroit and Cleveland as two offenders here: One has _no_ connections to the East Coast, while the other has awful hours on two trains).


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2011)

trainman74 said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even _theoretically _have.
> ...


...see that smoke rising off my head? That's me fuming about upside down priorities _within_ the rail business. I know you'd never get to 100%+ CR on that train, but it seems like such a solid operation to look at that it boggles my mind that it isn't under active consideration.


----------



## trainman74 (May 15, 2011)

I recently read a post-apocalyptic fantasy novel that included a Surfliner sleeping car, which presumably had been built for, and was running as part of, a revived Spirit of California. (At least, up until the apocalyptic event took place.)


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2011)

trainman74 said:


> I recently read a post-apocalyptic fantasy novel that included a Surfliner sleeping car, which presumably had been built for, and was running as part of, a revived Spirit of California. (At least, up until the apocalyptic event took place.)


Huh. Was that the sequel to _Ariel_? Something Beach? I never read that book.

Utterly random aside: Watching 500 Days of Summer with some folks in town. I'm such a dork that I _swear_ they have two characters going to San Diego on the Surfliner but it sure looks like they used standard Superliners for the exterior shot (though I think they used California cars for the interiors).


----------



## rrdude (May 15, 2011)

NorthCoastHiawatha said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> > North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.
> ...


Well, with your screen name, I would HOPE you don't think it's nuts, even thou it IS nuts.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (May 15, 2011)

rrdude said:


> NorthCoastHiawatha said:
> 
> 
> > henryj said:
> ...


So... http://www.anthony-thomas.com/shop/images/uploads/Products/FancyMixedNuts.jpg


----------



## TN Tin Man (May 16, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.
> 
> Southern Montana wants the North Coast Hiawatha. Southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon and Colorado want the Pioneer. As part of PRIIA, Amtrak did a study into restoring such service. The results weren't promising. But yet passenger rail advocates there disagree with Amtrak and say that they underestimated ridership numbers.
> 
> ...



I've read through this whole thread and can't believe the "Republican" responses from members that have shown in other posts to be Democrats. (Globalists)

As far as the Pioneer is concearned. We in the fly-over states would love to have rail (tax payer funded mass transit) like the east and mid-west have. We in Wyoming would like to have an option to driving. Right now we subsidize the one airline that flys into our state and still drive hours to get to that airport. If profit is the driving factor for rail service, how many of the existing routes should be history like Pioneer. (Oh, my mistake, east coast {large state Senators} votes)

In the East and Mid-west mass transit will be run into an area just because the population is "poor". How about the parts of the country that are are transportation "poor". Give us in southern Wyoming an option other than driving I-80 to SLC or DEN. By the way I-80 is paid for by you fuel tax payers in the east.

I watch the HSR threads and the Billions of dollars involved for existing rail lines in states like WS, IL, and FL, money spent just for speed. How about a few million to serve the remote parts of the nation? ( or are we just a bridge to no where?)

We out here in the wild-wild west may never become true "Blue". At least as a "Red" state we will spend tax money wisely. How many other States are in the Black?

We are!


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2011)

WY Tin Man,

Got a question: Given the projected operating deficits, is there any chance that the states out there would be willing to kick in a percentage of the deficits in running these trains a la the old Spirit of California? I'm asking mainly because...well, sub-30% CR is _very_ hard for a lot of folks to swallow, and even Amtrak has trouble doing it.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2011)

Anderson said:


> WY Tin Man,
> 
> Got a question: Given the projected operating deficits, is there any chance that the states out there would be willing to kick in a percentage of the deficits in running these trains a la the old Spirit of California? I'm asking mainly because...well, sub-30% CR is _very_ hard for a lot of folks to swallow, and even Amtrak has trouble doing it.


If such a train is introduced it would be part of Amtrak California and presumably would be covered by the overall subsidy that California kicks in for that program.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (May 16, 2011)

WY Tin Man said:


> GlobalistPotato said:
> 
> 
> > You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.
> ...


Unfortunately, it is a bridge to nowhere.

The "bridge to nowhere" was in fact sold on "access" reasons to small communities.

Even already, with I-80 and everything else, states like Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are "net-subsidy" states that get more in tax dollars than they get out. Meanwhile, states like NJ, CA, IL and NY are all "tax donor" states, meaning they have more tax dollars going out than in. Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are some of the most subsized states per capita. There's one thing if a LD train runs through that state or there's a train serving the most populous city in that state, but when it comes to HSR, I would be furious if Wyoming or Idaho were getting money for HSR while the Portal Tunnels or True-NEC-HSR were still short on capital funding.


----------



## bretton88 (May 16, 2011)

Wyoming is flush with cash right now. Massive surpluses. They could easily pony up some money to get the Pioneer running, or at least a Denver-SLC connection running via the Wyoming route.


----------



## trainviews (May 16, 2011)

railiner said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > > Is bringing back these routes a good idea?
> ...


Heh - thanks, but no, not really. I did live in NYC for a short while years back, and working in foreign news here (Copenhagen, Denmark), the US looms pretty large. The rest have to be ascribed to general nerdiness, I guess.

Oh - the Swedish x2000 high speed to Stockholm just pulled out of Copenhagen Central and passed in front of by my windows before speeding up and heading for the bridge...


----------



## trainviews (May 16, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> WY Tin Man said:
> 
> 
> > GlobalistPotato said:
> ...


I agree with Tin Man that just speculating in operating surpluses or losses should not be the only parameter for installing a train service. There are solid environmental and social arguments for subsidised services. But on the other hand getting the most bang for the buck can't be disregarded either.

Rail has the potential to solve a number transportation problems:

- moving large numbers of people along heavily traveled corridors, easing congestion on highways as well as in airports.

- doing so in an environmentally more sustainable way than cars or planes.

- providing connectivity to communities often enhancing economic development.

- providing a transportation alternative especially important to people who for some reason cannot drive.

Each of these are legitimate goals, but the aim must be to fulful as many of them as possible as well as possible with the money that can be squeezed out for trains. The first two only rail can do and only in relatively populated areas if it is to have any bigger impact. When it comes to connectivity, remote places might have better use of good road connections, that will take you in several directions or a subsidized airport bringing people directly to a larger hub instead of a very long train journey. And as for the transportation alternatives subsidised air service for long distance and a reasonable intercity bus network for shorter runs might be able to reach a larger part of the population for less money even though buses are a less convenient mode of travel.

And actually rail is NOT a very efficient way of moving a relatively limited number of people over very long distances taking much, much longer than flying.

So especially with rail service being so underdeveloped in the US focus really should be on the low hanging fruit - of which there are plenty. At least high volume corridors should go first. It might be good politics to buy support for rail from senators and congressmen in sparsely populated states and areas by installing trains there, but it is rather poor policy in terms of problem solving. And in my opinion polticially it might backfire. A concerted lobbying campaign to restore service on routes like the NCH or the Pioneer might prove succesful short term. But it will also use a lot of money that could benefit more people on other routes and play into the hand of the rail opponents (perpetual large subsidies benefitting next to noone, subsidised land cruises for holiday makers and all that). In reality it will only be secured until the next congress majority proposes its' first budget....

Actually the best way in the long term of securing rail service to relatively sparsely places like Wyoming might be to back a radical build-out between the population centers simply to get rail to be an indispensable part of the national transportation system again, thus building a much broader political support. But it won't get the local train running next year - or next decade probably...


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2011)

trainviews,

I agree wholeheartedly with subsidizing rail service...but I think you have to come up with a floor CR to shoot for. Now, that floor could be 80%...it could be 60%...it could be 25%, depending on the parameters, but there needs to be a floor for a daily service to achieve after X years in operation. Otherwise you have a hole in the tracks into which money is being poured, and equipment that could be better used getting diverted to run half-empty.

Naturally, there are going to be exceptions (one could argue that some of the trains running to/from the NEC spine are losing money but bolstering the numbers on the NE Regional service and/or the Acela), and one may need to look at an overall operation rather than just a single train...but at least from a business standpoint, it's a dubious situation.

Of course, a second question comes up: I expect that the answer is "no", but are there any areas (and western Nebraska seems to be screaming this...seven cities out there get something like $12 million in air service subsidies when I'd _think_ you could run two or three middle-of-nowhere trains for a similar operating deficit, and serve perhaps another 15-20 communities in the process) where killing off EAS subsidies and running a train would make sense?

Edit: And actually, another question: Though the dynamics would likely stink, would there be any sense (in lieu of an "actual" NCH) in running a daylight train on part of the NCH route instead of a full-on sleeper train? I know all of the dynamics about lost business and the like, which is why this is a question rather than a full-on suggestion.


----------



## Sam31452 (May 16, 2011)

There is absolutely no way bringing back those trains. especially the Ogden-Wyoming-Denver route is quite boring (landscape-wise) and will attract as many customers as a fridge dealer in Nunavut, Greeenland would.

In other words: the idea is completely nuts, although I like the idea of getting a few more long distance trains.


----------



## trainviews (May 17, 2011)

Anderson said:


> trainviews,
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with subsidizing rail service...but I think you have to come up with a floor CR to shoot for. Now, that floor could be 80%...it could be 60%...it could be 25%, depending on the parameters, but there needs to be a floor for a daily service to achieve after X years in operation. Otherwise you have a hole in the tracks into which money is being poured, and equipment that could be better used getting diverted to run half-empty.


Exactly my point - plus you need an asessment of what value for how many people you get for the subsidy - aside from the niceness of having a train.



> Of course, a second question comes up: I expect that the answer is "no", but are there any areas (and western Nebraska seems to be screaming this...seven cities out there get something like $12 million in air service subsidies when I'd _think_ you could run two or three middle-of-nowhere trains for a similar operating deficit, and serve perhaps another 15-20 communities in the process) where killing off EAS subsidies and running a train would make sense?


I am in no way deep enough into the numbers to give an economic assessment on that, but even if it makes financially sense, it might be a bad deal for the area. The air service gives a quick link to a hub (probably O'Hare) with a great multitude of connections, basically to the whole world. The train enhances the connectivity to a series of communities, but will still be a very long journey to any larger population centers with excellent further connections. No community today can afford to be 24 hours away from the rest of the world...


----------



## MeisterEric (Jun 17, 2011)

"Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled."

that was back in 1997....these days Amtrak is getting record ridership, year after year.

with the right routing, frequency, and timetable, the Pioneer route should do much better these days...(also considering the $4 /gallon for gas these days)


----------



## George Harris (Jun 17, 2011)

trainviews said:


> No community today can afford to be 24 hours away from the rest of the world...


Why not?


----------



## George Harris (Jun 17, 2011)

railiner said:


> Everything you say makes good sense. It would be a challenge however, to educate an entire generation (or two), of business travelers that could take advantage of your proposal to discard their beloved quick flights and comfortable business hotels with all their amenities...


Talked to any business travelers lately? Airport avoidance is considered highly desirable by many.


----------



## MeisterEric (Jun 17, 2011)

"Remove your belt, your watch, your shoes…."

 

"$7 for a pillow?!?"

 

"Extra baggage costs what?!?"

 

"Fasten your seatbelt"

 

"Remain seated during flight"

 

"$150 to cancel/rebook my flight?!?"


----------



## Anderson (Jun 17, 2011)

MeisterEric said:


> "Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled."
> 
> that was back in 1997....these days Amtrak is getting record ridership, year after year.
> 
> with the right routing, frequency, and timetable, the Pioneer route should do much better these days...(also considering the $4 /gallon for gas these days)


I think the heart of the problem is that Amtrak can't exactly afford to take on another "turkey" of a route with 25-30% CR (at best), particularly with the equipment situation being tight. Given the choice, it would probably make more sense to run the Desert Wind again in some form (albeit with a large "drop" consist LAX-LVS...preferably with some sort of "club" or "parlor" option therein to avoid a sleeper squeeze) than to run either the NCH or the Pioneer. I think you could do well with a decent above-coach class that only ran through to Las Vegas there...and there are enough proposals for that route that _someone_ is going to be able to make a credible move sooner or later.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Jun 17, 2011)

Anderson said:


> MeisterEric said:
> 
> 
> > "Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled."
> ...



Honestly, the Pioneer and NCH are being looked at for political reasons. I don't hear that many people on Amtrak's facebook page say how we need a CHI-FL train, but there's always someone saying "Bring Back the NCH!" or something like that. Politics and CR are inverted in this case.

For the Desert Wind, I'd have to agree that it's the best out of the three dropped western LD routes, cause it goes through Vegas. But here's the main reasons for bring back the DW, and potential alternatives that might work better, do more for the effort required, or are otherwise easier. I'm not saying that the DW shouldn't be brought back in its full form, but there are things that can be done in the short term that make the DW more stable and politically viable in the long term.

1) Restore service to Vegas. Not bad, but if this is the main objective, the LAX-LAV market would be better served by a multi-day corridor service instead of just one train per day.

2) Have another LAX-CHI train, via the City of Los Angeles Route. Not a bad idea in the long-term, but until we start seeing Amtrak being able to create new LD routes, the best thing they can do is to add extra cars to the Southwest Chief and make the Sunset Limited go daily. Remember, most of the people who ride on a LD train aren't riding from end-point to end-point.

3) Restore LAX-DEN service. I could see some need to this, but I think a better short-term solution is to have a LAX-DEN train via Raton and Pueblo. Having another train going over the Raton Pass will make maintaining the line more justified, and the needed improvements to allow an Amtrak train to access Denver from the south are the same improvements that would be required for corridor service between Pueblo, Denver and Cheyenne, plus a Denver-Texas-NOL/HOU train. New Mexico is advocating for access between ABQ and DEN anyway.

4) Because old Amtrak routes need to be restored. Sure, if we follow that argument, then we might as well bring back the Lake Country Limited!






I just don't see myself supporting the NCH or it becoming a reality until BNSF abandons the whole GN line or Amtrak has grown to the point where we're building true-High Speed Rail across the country and there's like 4 four LD trains along the LSL's route (for instance...).

The Pioneer is a bit better, but its main problem is that the route-pairs it serves are either redundant (like SEA/PDX-CHI), are internal between small towns along the route, or are moderate pairs like SEA-PDX and SLC/DEN. Even then, that doesn't place the route high on my priority list.

However, remember what I said about having a CO-TX train? The Pioneer should be incorporate just that. After splitting off from the Cali Zephyr in DEN, the Pioneer heads south towards Texas and the Gulf Coast. The result? Many more new city pairs are created, like SEA/PDX-DFW-Texas Cities, and TX-CO, and SEA/PDX-NOL (if it goes that far). Etc Etc.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Jun 18, 2011)

Anyone who thinks that additional long distance routes will be restored/added by Amtrak is a dreamer. With the current mentality in Washington, we will be lucky to keep what we currently have. No capital funds have been appropriated for new Western long distance equipment and the current equipment is getting older and more worn each day.


----------



## Larry Scheib (Jun 19, 2011)

I think the Pioneer route has to be pieced together in a similar fashion as the Cascades route from Portland to Vancouver BC. The line could start running North-South in Colorado along the front range, maybe from Albuequerque to Cheyenne. It could use the line that is planned to support Denver's future NW line which will run through Boulder and onto Longmont; similar to what the Cascades Amtrak line does with Sounder trains. This service would provide for a burgeoning area where demand would be greatest. Once there is proof of concept the line could be extended south to El Paso, again sharing lines, this time with the Roadrunner tracks. It could then be extended west to Ogden and so on and so on. Amtrak could piece it together in this fashion minimizing the need for the fusion of large sums of money and yet proving its viability.

Food for thought,

Lars


----------



## Anderson (Jun 20, 2011)

I've been mulling over the LAX-LAV market a bit. I'm pretty sure there's a market there (profitable or not, I don't know, but the auto and air markets are big enough that I'd think you could poach some market share pretty easily...especially with CA's gas taxes), but I'm also convinced there's an "upmarket" you can go after that you'd _have_ to get a DW going to snag: If LA-Las Vegas is going to be a 5-7 hour trip, I think you need at least one train per day that offers something a _little_ better than a microwave meatball sub to eat. I'll grant that you could get away with something like the Cafe Acela (or perhaps the Surfliner's menu), but you need something better than the NE Regional Cafe.

What I would propose would be three daily trains: A DW and one or two "Las Vegas Limiteds" (or something like that) timed differently. The DW would be the "premium" train on the route (complete with a dining car the whole way) and would get the most marketable timing that could be managed in conjunction with the larger LAX-SLC run. It would drop about half of its consist in Vegas (all either coaches or some variant on Custom Class from the old NE Regionals). The LVL would fill in the gap on the schedule, feature perhaps an "enhanced cafe" service pf some kind, and only run LAX-LAV.

By the way, yes, you would have multiple classes on each train. I think this is _somewhat_ unique to Vegas, but you've got two markets that you're shooting for here aside from sleepers: One going for a quick gambling trip that wants to get from A to B as (reasonably) inexpensively as possible and with the least hassle, and another group that is going to Vegas for a nice weekend and splurging. One is going to go for the cheapest fare they can find that is reasonably comfortable and hassle-free; the other may not be going for a sleeper all the way, but they're certainly not looking to spend six hours on a "tracked bus".


----------



## MeisterEric (Jun 20, 2011)

For trains going thru Nevada, perhaps Amtrak could add a "Gambling" car to the train...i.e. a few slot machines and a couple of card tables....

have the car only available during the train's run thru Nevada......

:hi:


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Jun 20, 2011)

jphjaxfl said:


> Anyone who thinks that additional long distance routes will be restored/added by Amtrak is a dreamer. With the current mentality in Washington, we will be lucky to keep what we currently have. No capital funds have been appropriated for new Western long distance equipment and the current equipment is getting older and more worn each day.


I never say it would! :giggle: Of course there's gonna have to be a change in leadership of both parties if there's any improvement in our transportation system, let alone trains.



Anderson said:


> I've been mulling over the LAX-LAV market a bit. I'm pretty sure there's a market there (profitable or not, I don't know, but the auto and air markets are big enough that I'd think you could poach some market share pretty easily...especially with CA's gas taxes), but I'm also convinced there's an "upmarket" you can go after that you'd _have_ to get a DW going to snag: If LA-Las Vegas is going to be a 5-7 hour trip, I think you need at least one train per day that offers something a _little_ better than a microwave meatball sub to eat. I'll grant that you could get away with something like the Cafe Acela (or perhaps the Surfliner's menu), but you need something better than the NE Regional Cafe.
> 
> What I would propose would be three daily trains: A DW and one or two "Las Vegas Limiteds" (or something like that) timed differently. The DW would be the "premium" train on the route (complete with a dining car the whole way) and would get the most marketable timing that could be managed in conjunction with the larger LAX-SLC run. It would drop about half of its consist in Vegas (all either coaches or some variant on Custom Class from the old NE Regionals). The LVL would fill in the gap on the schedule, feature perhaps an "enhanced cafe" service pf some kind, and only run LAX-LAV.
> 
> By the way, yes, you would have multiple classes on each train. I think this is _somewhat_ unique to Vegas, but you've got two markets that you're shooting for here aside from sleepers: One going for a quick gambling trip that wants to get from A to B as (reasonably) inexpensively as possible and with the least hassle, and another group that is going to Vegas for a nice weekend and splurging. One is going to go for the cheapest fare they can find that is reasonably comfortable and hassle-free; the other may not be going for a sleeper all the way, but they're certainly not looking to spend six hours on a "tracked bus".


Yeah. Good idea. That's the sort of "corridor service" I was thinking of between LAX and LAV.



MeisterEric said:


> For trains going thru Nevada, perhaps Amtrak could add a "Gambling" car to the train...i.e. a few slot machines and a couple of card tables....
> 
> have the car only available during the train's run thru Nevada......
> 
> :hi:


I've heard that idea a lot from private proposals for a LAX-LAV train.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jun 20, 2011)

GlobalistPotato said:


> Of course there's gonna have to be a change in leadership of both parties if there's any improvement in our transportation system, let alone trains.


I sure hope we can replace Obama with a pro-rail president as I'm quite sick of his anti-rail rhetoric.


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Jun 20, 2011)

Texas Sunset said:


> GlobalistPotato said:
> 
> 
> > Of course there's gonna have to be a change in leadership of both parties if there's any improvement in our transportation system, let alone trains.
> ...


Oh, it isn't that - it's that he's fueling his opponents arguments aganist rail, particularly the "we're broke and we can't afford it" argument. Why is that? Because he's been continuing the wars (and launching another one in Libya), and those are taking away any money that could be used for passenger rail.

That and I don't think he/USDOT managed his support for HSR proposals very well - mainly because of the fact that the conventional rail projects in Ohio and Wisconsin were branded as "high-speed rail".

I mean, sure... if Obama and the Democrats were the only ones in power, then the projects in Ohio, Wisconsin and Florida would be alright. But we don't live in that world.


----------



## NY Penn (Jun 20, 2011)

In my opinion, the Pioneer has to serve an unserved market, and have good departure and arrival scheduling.

My proposal for a revived Pioneer has the train running from PDX (with a possible extension to SEA) to SAS, making stops in these major cities (minor cities are too numerous to list):

S-B........N-B........Station

8 PM.......10 AM.....Portland, OR

11 PM......7 AM......Pendleton, OR

7 AM.......11 PM.....Boise, ID

2 PM.......4 PM......Ogden, UT

12 AM......6 AM......Cheyenne, WY (2-hour layover SB)

8 AM.......10 PM.....Denver, CO (3-hour layover SB)(3-hour layover NB)

10 AM......5 PM......Colorado Springs, CO

2 PM.......1 PM......Trinidad, CO

9 PM.......6 AM......Amarillo, TX (1-hour layover SB)

5 AM.......10 PM.....Wichita Falls, TX

9 AM.......7 PM......Fort Worth (1-hour layover SB)

12 PM......4 PM......Dallas

4 PM.......11 AM.....Houston


----------



## GlobalistPotato (Jun 20, 2011)

NY Penn said:


> In my opinion, the Pioneer has to serve an unserved market, and have good departure and arrival scheduling.
> 
> My proposal for a revived Pioneer has the train running from PDX (with a possible extension to SEA) to SAS, making stops in these major cities (minor cities are too numerous to list):
> 
> ...


That would work out pretty good if it's going through WY. I actually like it.

Personally, I'd like the Pioneer to run with the CZ between DEN and SLC, but that'd require the Pioneer to serve Idaho and Amarillo in the middle of the night. Plus, the CZ would have to arrive at DEN at 9-10am instead of 7-8am going WB. Still, your plan has some pretty good timings and all transfer points have connections (except for DEN/CZ).

So what to do about no connections with the CZ at DEN? Have part of the Pioneer run between DEN and CHI - making another DEN-CHI train. However, the EB train would have to lay over 3 hours in DEN (as you listed) so that Chicago gets a 6:30 am arrival.


----------



## NY Penn (Jun 21, 2011)

I don't really understand what you mean, GlobalistPotato.

Southbound, the Pioneer sits in Denver from 5 to 8 AM (during which time the CZ is supposed to pass through going toward California). In the opposite direction, the Pioneer sits in Denver from 7 to 10 PM (during which time the CZ passes through toward Chicago). Although it would be better for the connections to be reversed (southbound Pioneer connects with eastbound Zephyr), that would lead to worse scheduling (as it is now, Portland-Boise and Portland-Ft Worth riders have evening departures and morning arrivals (good for business travelers)). If morning departures and evening arrivals are not an issue, then it would not be a problem to switch the schedule to something like this:

S-B........N-B.......Station

8 AM.......10 PM.....Portland, OR

11 AM......7 PM......Pendleton, OR

7 PM.......11 AM.....Boise, ID

2 AM.......4 AM......Ogden, UT

12 PM......6 PM......Cheyenne, WY (2-hour layover SB)

8 PM.......10 AM.....Denver, CO (3-hour layover SB)(3-hour layover NB)

10 PM......5 AM......Colorado Springs, CO

2 AM.......1 AM......Trinidad, CO

9 AM.......6 PM......Amarillo, TX (1-hour layover SB)

5 PM.......10 AM.....Wichita Falls, TX

8 PM.......7 AM......Fort Worth

1 AM.......4 AM......Dallas (2-hour layover SB)

6 AM.......10 PM.....Houston

This allows room for a late CZ and also permits SLC-DEN travel with the CZ (or even through cars to Chicago). In addition, this schedule gives Portland-Boise a day train.

If warranted, both schedules could be implemented :giggle: , with trains running 12 hours apart, instead of 24.


----------



## NY Penn (Jun 21, 2011)

Sorry for the double post.

Would it be totally ridiculous for the Desert Wind to go LAX-SLC-Helena-via EB to CHI? This could be in conjunction with an EB reroute via the old NCH, if that route is determined to have higher ridership




.


----------



## Todd (Oct 11, 2014)

How about Winnepeg to Chicago or Bismark to Chicago? That adds a frequency to Chicago Minneapolis and improves service to oil booming North Dakota A later extension into Montana creating a 24 hr late evening departure from Missoula. Rather than traditional sleepers, a lie flat first class like they have on international airline flights and a simple dinette lounge. It could work.


----------



## neroden (Oct 11, 2014)

Border crossing paranoia and insanity since 9/11 (Bush & Obama & Harper in Canada have all colluded in this) have made it really problematic to try to run any cross-border service. The three existing services have enough trouble. I don't think Winnipeg-to-US service could get started until we, as a country, relax about our borders. (Remember, all the 9/11 hijackers entered legally; none of this stuff would have stopped any of them.)

I'd ride Bismarck to Chicago (I have a friend in Bismarck). However, when BNSF came up with the cost numbers for reinstating the North Coast Hiawatha, the Montana part was actually the cheaper part, and it was the eastern part of North Dakota where they wanted huge amounts of money -- because there's a lot of freight traffic there.

So, in money terms, it would be easier to reinstate Spokane to Billings than Bismarck to Chicago. :-( Unfortunately, Spokane to Billings isn't that useful, because even in Montana, most people are heading east, not west.


----------



## WICT106 (Oct 11, 2014)

I will second a Winnipeg - Chicago route, acting as an additional train along the Builder's route through MN & WI. I also realize that the border crossing and customs inspections, as currently performed, would create hassles.

As for the return of the North Coast Hi, I think I'd have it act as an additional train along the ND - CHI route, only to cut over to the ex-NP at Snowdon, MT, and rejoining the route at the western border of the State.


----------



## railiner (Oct 11, 2014)

MeisterEric said:


> For trains going thru Nevada, perhaps Amtrak could add a "Gambling" car to the train...i.e. a few slot machines and a couple of card tables....
> 
> have the car only available during the train's run thru Nevada......


Or they could dig out the old bingo machines that used to be used on the old Florida Special....although not sure if Amtrak ever did use those like the Seaboard Coastline did... 

Edit: Just to be clear...it wasn't 'gambling' then, as the cards were free, and the 'prizes' were promotional merchandise donated by vendors, in that case...


----------

