Feasibility of Twin Cities Hiawatha

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I was wondering if a MSP-CHI one stop (MKE) train would be a good idea, only stopping in Milwaukee, because I saw a lot of people getting on in MKE to get to MSP, (the Empire Builder can handle the other stops), because the current Empire Builder is seemingly very slow, stops too much, and is usually late (my grandmas train was 24 H late, my train was 6 H late, 2.25 H late, and 1H late). Would this be possible with the new bi-level corridor cars, freeing up some Horizon cars, or using some of the new cars, and if the current empire builder averages 53 MPH with 9 intermediate stops, what would a one stop train, perhaps with track improvements when Gov. Dayton gets eliminated, some funds could go to more 79 MPH track, or installing PTC and bumping it up to 110 or even 125 for some segments. This is a 418 mile trip, and could be bumped down from 8H to perhaps 4-6H, depending on track and trains. I think this would be appealing for the business traveler between CHI and MSP, be cause get there fifteen min before your train, get on a train for four hours, then get off. OR you could take the TRAIN to the airport, then go through security and WAIT, then get on the plane, then fly, then land, disembark, get your bags, then catch the blue line to downtown Minneapolis, or transfer to the green line in Downtown Minneapolis, then take the green line to St. Paul. It would also appeal to me because I can take a train, rather than a plane suited for people not 6' 1" tall, long legged, and smart. I WANT LEGROOM

 

[lyke99]

On a route that currently only has one train per day, every stop could benefit from more service. We don't know if the Empire Builder can handle all the intermediate stop business because it was 1979 the last time this route had more than once daily service and the train often runs full or very close to capacity east of MSP.

As a person who lives in Rochester and has to drive to either Red Wing or Winona to catch the train, I've had dozens of people who try the train once and say to me (knowing I love taking the train) how relaxing it was and how they'll never drive to Chicago again.

Governor Dayton is not the obstacle in terms of transportation in Minnesota. This year, in a shortened session, the Legislature had only a couple of things that NEEDED to be done, one was to pass a transportation bill. In late May, the Legislature's deadline for adjournment came and went with no transportation bill...

 

[SarahZ]

To answer your question, I have two words for you: Governor Walker.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

With the one stop deal, I would say (if I was in charge), to start with 1 train (daily) stopping at all stops, but no smoke stop at Winona, and eventually expanding to 2 trains, then 3, with two stopping at all stops, and one only stopping at MKE, and if there is more to come, add one LTD stop for every regular train, maybe 7-8 expresses to 10 regionals

 

[CCC1007]

With the one stop deal, I would say (if I was in charge), to start with 1 train (daily) stopping at all stops, but no smoke stop at Winona, and eventually expanding to 2 trains, then 3, with two stopping at all stops, and one only stopping at MKE, and if there is more to come, add one LTD stop for every regular train, maybe 7-8 expresses to 10 regionals

That would be nice but only add trains once you have all of your capacity used 60+% of the time, imho.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I am suggesting that when more would people start riding the train, especially when speeds increase, and people realize that it is faster than driving, flying, and or a coach/bus.

 

[Eric S]

A few thoughts:

- Governor Walker, not Governor Dayton, is a major obstacle (Governor Rauner may be as well).

- There are no unassigned bilevel cars for this service - when (if?) these are ever delivered, they are essentially assigned to existing and planned services in IL, MI, and MO (the states that purchased such cars). Some combination of MN-WI-IL would need to purchase additional cars for this services.

- If we ever get to a point where there are multiple trains on this corridor (as proposed in the Midwest Regional Rail Initiative), not just the Empire Builder and a second "corridor" train, then I think running some as all-stops "locals" and some as limited-stops "expresses" would certainly make sense. However I'm not sure that skipping all stops other than Milwaukee would be the best choice - I think at least a few others would justify a stop, like La Crosse and/or Winona, with their university traffic, and of course Madison if service is ever rerouted through that city.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

Agreed on the stops, I was thinking about the largest city, and when the bi-levels are delivered (see "Nppon-Sharyo wins contract for the 130 bi-levels", the Horizon cars should be freed up, and if they are refurbished, they can be used for this service.

 

[Eric S]

If you haven't looked at it already, you might be interested in some of the documents on the MnDOT site for their study of a second CHI-MKE-MSP train.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

IIRC the route between Chicago and Minneapolis had something like 12 or more roundtrips a day on the various railroads and routings, most of which were the fastest crack trains available at the time (seems I've heard that Madison was the only service that was hourly from Chicago on one RR, but that's not really relevant here). It's almost a national scandal that there isn't better service between Chicago and Minnesota (except for Columbus not having any service).

Both Walker and Rauner are the roadblocks at the moment. Walker might be ok with a second train - he's on record, which I'm too lazy to look up, as being in favor of improvements to the existing Hiawatha service despite killing the bigger Talgo plan a while back and this might fall into the improvement of existing service.

To really get ridership one would have to get the states to buy the corridors and/or pay to speed them up - it's a long trip even with better times. And with faster, more reliable service along the route there would be more riders of course.

 

[Seaboard92]

Now I'm going to jump in here. Intermediate stops are very important. I see the idea of non stop trains like the ICE Sprinters operated by DBAG. But how they are able to get away with it one is the amount of trains being operated on the routes used. And it's a culture used to using the train.

Most of the trains are still making stops and that's good for a train. You have midpoint to midpoint traffic. Terminal to midpoint being your largest amount of traffic. Then there is terminal to terminal. Your intermediate travel makes a successful train. Leave the stops but make infrastructure improvements and you can get the time card down.

 

[west point]

For every person lost for an on or off at a intermediate station is another on or off an intermediate or more likely a terminal station lost.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

The contemporary US record for non-stop or even truly express service is poor to fail. iirc The Surfliners tried a non-stop run L.A.-San Diego and shaved a few minutes off the run time. Fail. Cancelled after a year or so. More people wanted to go to Oceanside or Orange County stops than go end to end.

Anyway, nobody does it. Not San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento, not Portland-Seattle, not CHI-Milwaukee, not even the Acelas. There's a reason for that.

For Amtrak, the trend is to add stops on existing LD routes. Arcadia Valley, Missouri, between St Louis n Poplar Bluff, for the Texas Eagle. Another coming at Flatonia (1,483 pop, but little over an hour south of Austin) on the Sunset Ltd between Houston n San Antonio. Also soonish, a station at Marks, Mississippi, about halfway between Memphis and Greenwood on the City of New Orleans route. These are very small towns (Marks is 1,550). But apparently Amtrak expects riders to get to the new station more easily than to more distant stops in Memphis or Greenwood, as well as serving tourists to the "Delta region", the birthplace of the blues.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

In the case of LA to San Diego, Orange County is a big market and skipping over them wouldn't make sense.

Whether to have fewer/no stops or more depends on whether or not you have enough passengers boarding/detraining at the specific stop to justify the extra time to start, stop, and wait (in the event that the train is early). There is no hard and fast rule for fewer stops vs. more stops, it's on a case by case basis. If you fill my train, I'll stop for you. Otherwise, I won't.

 

[keelhauled]

Another data point is the one stop (PHL) Acela trip between New York and Washington a while back. It didn't last long.

 

[Seaboard92]

I remember the headline in a Wilmington Delaware paper that was actually mad about getting skipped over with that express Acela

 

[Anderson]

The contemporary US record for non-stop or even truly express service is poor to fail. iirc The Surfliners tried a non-stop run L.A.-San Diego and shaved a few minutes off the run time. Fail. Cancelled after a year or so. More people wanted to go to Oceanside or Orange County stops than go end to end.

Anyway, nobody does it. Not San Jose-Oakland-Sacramento, not Portland-Seattle, not CHI-Milwaukee, not even the Acelas. There's a reason for that.

For Amtrak, the trend is to add stops on existing LD routes. Arcadia Valley, Missouri, between St Louis n Poplar Bluff, for the Texas Eagle. Another coming at Flatonia (1,483 pop, but little over an hour south of Austin) on the Sunset Ltd between Houston n San Antonio. Also soonish, a station at Marks, Mississippi, about halfway between Memphis and Greenwood on the City of New Orleans route. These are very small towns (Marks is 1,550). But apparently Amtrak expects riders to get to the new station more easily than to more distant stops in Memphis or Greenwood, as well as serving tourists to the "Delta region", the birthplace of the blues.

Well, there's also the fact that almost all LD routes have one train per day. If there were 3-5x through trains you'd probably see a few of them running "more express"; the same would apply if demand rose to the point that you had two trains leaving, one after the other (e.g. a 1730 train running express followed by a 1735 train running local), with an effort to "nudge" through traffic to the express.

 

[taking the cars]

Detroit has six trains to and from Chicago each day. I cannot understand why there cannot be that many between MSP and Chicago. Yesterday the EB was eight hours late and my wife and I had to endure an nine hour bus ride to Chicago.

 

[Eric S]

Detroit has six trains to and from Chicago each day. I cannot understand why there cannot be that many between MSP and Chicago. Yesterday the EB was eight hours late and my wife and I had to endure an nine hour bus ride to Chicago.

Simply put, there are 3 daily roundtrips between Chicago and Detroit because Michigan has chosen to pay for them. If some combination of IL/MN/WI chose to pay for a similar service between Chicago and St. Paul (not unlike what IL/WI pay for between Chicago and Milwaukee), it could also exist.

(Yes, it's more complicated than that - history/legacy, equipment availability, host railroad agreements, etc - but in the end it comes down to funding. If states want service and pay for service, it will probably exist. If states don't pay for it, it probably won't exist.)

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

(Yes, it's more complicated than that - history/legacy, equipment availability, host railroad agreements, etc - but in the end it comes down to funding. If states want service and pay for service, it will probably exist. If states don't pay for it, it probably won't exist.)

With the exception of the LD routes.

 

[jebr]

(Yes, it's more complicated than that - history/legacy, equipment availability, host railroad agreements, etc - but in the end it comes down to funding. If states want service and pay for service, it will probably exist. If states don't pay for it, it probably won't exist.)

With the exception of the LD routes.

And Amtrak's Northeast Corridor services.

 

[Eric S]

Hence my inclusion of the word "probably" - there are exceptions, but there are far more corridors with no service than there are with decent service and no state/local contributions.