Chicago to West Coast Service: Past and Present

[jphjaxfl]

Any idea of the intermediate population between MSP and SPK on the EB? Unless there's more than I think, this is probably why I thought it made more sense to keep the Pioneer instead of the EB (have the EB be just CHI-MSP and then MSP would never have to wait because the train got delayed in North Dakota or Montana).

If it were up to me and we could add a 4th CHI-West Coast train, end points do matter and I would want one to LA (DW) before the Pacific NW (or the Bay Area). Of course like Nate I would rather expand CHI-East Coast first. It would be absolutely messed up if there were two daily trains between CHI-PDX/SEA and no daily trains between CHI-PHL.

Keep in mind that Burlington Northern operated 4 passenger trains in both directions from Minneapolis to Spokane immediately before Amtrak began on April 30, 1971. This was due to the type of winter weather across the Northern Tier and the lack of alternative transportation. The Empire Builder and the Western Star operated on the former Great Northern Route while the North Coast Limited and Mainstreeter operated via the former Northern Pacific Route which was more southerly. Both the secondary trains carried sleeping cars and had meal service. The people across the Northern Tier were still used to riding trains. When Amtrak started and only the Empire Builder remained, the people were complaining about lack of service so that Senator Mike Mansfield had the North Coast Hiawatha started across the Northern Pacific route. If Amtrak were to eliminate the Empire Builder between St. Paul and Spokane there would be many complaints.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

If Amtrak were to eliminate the Empire Builder between St. Paul and Spokane there would be many complaints.

As there were when the Broadway Limited/Three Rivers, Pioneer, Desert Wind, Floridian, National Limited, Lone Star, etc. were eliminated. It comes with the territory. Any time a train gets canceled, someone is sure to complain.

You never want to cancel trains or eliminate service but if you have to you want to keep the ones that serve more people. Unless you or Desert Dude tell me there were more people who are served by the EB than those who were served by the Pioneer, to me the Pioneer was the one they should have kept. Plus you save on train miles/costs (or even if you did run the CZ and Pioneer separately, you'd have two trains CHI-DEN as Nate is in favor of). And I would imagine more people would want to go from DEN to SEA/PDX than MSP to SEA/PDX since it's quite a bit shorter.

I have no idea why the EB is so popular. I'd imagine most if not all SEA/PDX passengers would have ridden the Pioneer if it had been the only train to CHI. I'm sure a lot of passengers are between CHI-MSP and SEA/PDX-SPK. Between MSP and SPK, other than those going through, who's left? North Dakota and Montana? Two of the smallest states in population in the US.

 

[CCC1007]

The builder provides the only form of public transportation for the area it serves between spk and msp, with the nearest interstate highway for much of that route being almost or more than 200 miles away, no bus service on parallel roads, and very expensive essential air service flights on tiny aircraft that are subsidized at $500 per passenger one way and still charge $500-$1000 per person one way.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Is Amtrak a charity who gives service to who needs it the most or a business who gives service to those who can help them the most financially? If we give trains to people who can give Amtrak more money we wouldn't need as much from the federal government and maybe our taxes will go down. Or for the same amount of money we can serve more passengers in larger states and cities than we do now.

 

[neroden]

Any idea of the intermediate population between MSP and SPK on the EB? Unless there's more than I think,

The area has disproportionately high ridership compared to population. This is probably because(1) there are no expressways, no Interstates

(2) airfare is astronomically expensive

(3) the roads have a tendency to shut down in the winter

(4) no bus service

Really, look at it; the towns on the EB route have much higher ridership than you'd expect for their size.

This is why it consistently does better financially than the Sunset Limited, Southwest Chief, California Zephyr, and usually better than the Texas Eagle and Coast Starlight. It seems to be breaking even before overhead at the moment (though it'll go back into loss this year with BNSF getting OTP bonuses again).

So yes, it is serving more people. Financially speaking, if you keep only one Chicago-West Coast train, it's the one to keep.

If I-84 had never been constructed, the Pioneer would probably have been as successful; but I-84 *was* constructed. So the Empire Builder was always far more successful than the Pioneer.

P.S. This is one reason Vermont's "Western Route" will be very successful: no interstate highway competition.

 

[keelhauled]

You never want to cancel trains or eliminate service but if you have to you want to keep the ones that serve more people. Unless you or Desert Dude tell me there were more people who are served by the EB than those who were served by the Pioneer, to me the Pioneer was the one they should have kept.

Amtrak's 2009 study on restoring Pioneer service projected 123,000 passengers annually. I don't know offhand what the Builder's current ridership is, but it has recently been in the 400,000-500,000 neighborhood.

 

[crescent2]

Is Amtrak a charity who gives service to who needs it the most or a business who gives service to those who can help them the most financially? If we give trains to people who can give Amtrak more money we wouldn't need as much from the federal government and maybe our taxes will go down. Or for the same amount of money we can serve more passengers in larger states and cities than we do now.

Not a charity, but I would say that Amtrak does provide a public service, in the same vein as highways and bridges. Not to say that it shouldn't be run as efficiently as practical, of course, but passenger rail will always require a subsidy. It shouldn't be compared with running a private business.

 

[Anderson]

Amtrak doesn't fit into any of the above categories. The best way I can think of to describe it is that Amtrak is a business, but it is a business which operates services contracted by the federal government which may not directly turn Amtrak a profit. This is actually the attitude of the Amtrak administration these days, I believe.

One thing to note is that ridership is not strictly a function of population on a route. A lack of interstates (witness the Builder), bad winter weather (Builder), congestion (NEC/Virginia), scenery (Zephyr), service timing (look at the low ridership in Ohio), and other factors play a role in determining how much ridership a given train can expect.

 

[neroden]

I'd add tolls on the parallel roads (LSL, Empire, Keystone, Pennsylvanian, NEC, Hiawatha), poor/expensive air service (the intermediate stops on a *lot* of routes), and interstate highway speeds (55/65 mph in NY vs. 75/85 mph in Texas). In short, the price and speed of the competing modes matters.