Is it possible for CZ to go through Omaha - Des Moines - Iowa City - Davenport - Chicago?

[coventry801]

just came back from Iowa and it is huge inconvenience to take throughway bus from major cities in Iowa. As I counted, there is literally no passengers on and off at Burlington, Mt Pleasant, etc

 

[danasgoodstuff]

I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the short answer is 'possible yes, easy no'. That is, the track exists and is in decent repair, but it would take a lot of doing in terms of stations and other issues. Still, it makes more sense to me to shift the CA route than to have a separate 2nd service run parallel to it. But maybe a second service to Des Moines or even Omaha from Chicago would make sense if the schedule would then be better.

 

[CCC1007]

Part of the reason that the CZ currently operates on the BNSF line through the area is that Amtrak tends to stay on larger railroad's lines, but another part is that the towns along the route, like Burlington, have pushed their politicians to keep the line the way it is.

A better solution for total number of passengers would be a day train from Chicago to Omaha or even Denver, via the more populous route, along side the CZ.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

And isn't a big part of this the history of the Rock Island Line which went through Des Moines, etc. not joining Amtrak in '71?

 

[George Harris]

And isn't a big part of this the history of the Rock Island Line which went through Des Moines, etc. not joining Amtrak in '71?

Yes, and then CRIP went down financially along with their track conditions, ultimately going bankrupt and was dismembered or abandoned. Have no knowledge of the track's present condition or signals or lack thereof. I suspect this was the first east-west railroad across Iowa, given that it goes through the capital and major cities and the CB&Q and C&NW came along later. (That is BN and UP for you young guys.)

 

[Willbridge]

Yes, and then CRIP went down financially along with their track conditions, ultimately going bankrupt and was dismembered or abandoned. Have no knowledge of the track's present condition or signals or lack thereof. I suspect this was the first east-west railroad across Iowa, given that it goes through the capital and major cities and the CB&Q and C&NW came along later. (That is BN and UP for you young guys.)

The Q, backed by the Michigan Central and the RI backed by the New York Central were in something of a race. The Q chose the richer and wetter farmland for its line. It created lots of interesting real estate issues when land grants to the two companies overlapped.

The choice of lines is another pro and con story, as on the northern transcontinentals. Should a single rail line serve the Interstate freeway route with competing bus and auto and air service or a route in a smaller market which it dominates? And having spent evenings as a ColoRail volunteer at Denver Union Station I would not say that "no one" uses the intermediate stops.

In a better world, as suggested above, a daylight train would serve at least Lincoln<>Omaha<>Des Moines<>Chicago. If the Midwest high-speed association has its way between Chicago and Omaha, then it would be fast enough to reliably run a Denver<>Chicago coach train.

At current running times, there are three slots for an additional DEN<>CHI train. They are:

• daylight to Lincoln, overnight to Chicago.
• the Denver Zephyr (ahead of Train 6 from DEN, behind Train 5 from CHI).
• overnight to Lincoln, daylight to Chicago.

 

[jphjaxfl]

There were originally 6 Railroads offering passenger trains between Chicago and Omaha. CB&Q, C&NW, CMSTP&P, CRI&P,CGW and IC. CB&Q had the most frequent service and the Zephyrs were the fastest. By 1971 when Amtrak started, the 2 Railroads remaining were the CB&Q and the CMSP&P. CB&Q had become BN shortly before. CMSP&P operated UP's through trains between Omaha and Chicago, but didn't serve much population. The CRI&P had discontinued passenger service between Rock Island and Omaha in 1969. Rock Island's tracks were never maintained to the level of Burlington's. Burlington still had 3 trains per day in 1971 so they were the logical choice to join Amtrak and even in 2021 have better tracks than the Rock Island's.

 

[neroden]

just came back from Iowa and it is huge inconvenience to take throughway bus from major cities in Iowa. As I counted, there is literally no passengers on and off at Burlington, Mt Pleasant, etc

Don't get me started. The Iowa Interstate track through the major cities (the former Rock Island route) needs to be rebuilt for passenger speeds (it's currently in poor repair, with low speed limits suitable only for slow freight). This has been proposed repeatedly, but requires support from the state government of Iowa.

The Republican leadership of the state legislature has shot down and refused to spend a single dollar on any project to improve passenger rail service in Iowa -- even one which was 90% federally funded and backed by the Quad Cities, Iowa City, and Cedar Rapids governments. Until the attitude of the state legislature leaders changes, nothing's going to improve in Iowa.

 

[Bfputtzman]

Two round trips (4 trains) should operate daily between Chicago and Des Moines over BNSF (ex-CB&Q). The line is double tracked and existing Amtrak from Chicago to Albia (300 miles) and under capacity, and the former Zephyr route is high speed (125-mph) capable. Albia to Des Moines would need upgrading, but BNSF (unlike IAIS) has experience and is capable with public funding. It’s silly to suggest upgrading the dark territory single track IAIS (former RI) from Wyanet to Des Moines some 230 miles even if it does pass through the population centers, IMO.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

I think we need maps to make this clear to those of us who don't have existing and historic trackage in Iowa committed to memory.

 

[jebr]

It’s silly to suggest upgrading the dark territory single track IAIS (former RI) from Wyanet to Des Moines some 230 miles even if it does pass through the population centers, IMO.

What's the point of spending money to upgrade tracks and operate trains if it isn't going to hit most of the useful city pairs? Chicago - Des Moines is a market, but travel times will likely be longer than via an upgraded IAIS route, particularly if the BNSF route stays at or below 90MPH. There's certainly some intermediate traffic, but it's unlikely to be as strongly used as adding Iowa City (with likely connecting bus service to Cedar Rapids) and Davenport onto the network. The work can also be done in chunks - the route to Davenport may happen regardless since that's on Illinois' list for passenger routes, and if political tides ever shift in Iowa there'd likely be enough political will to at least extend it to Iowa City, and that demand wouldn't go away even with your proposed Chicago - Des Moines route. At that point the question becomes whether you upgrade Albia to Des Moines or Iowa City to Des Moines - and the political will would almost certainly lean towards upgrading Iowa City - Des Moines in that case.

Routing a Chicago - Des Moines train via Albia only makes sense if the only criteria is to add Des Moines, and Des Moines only, to the national passenger rail network for as little cost as possible. But it would almost certainly be a lightly patronized route from the start, and likely set back passenger rail efforts in Iowa for decades (as everyone would point to it as a boondoggle and "proof passenger rail doesn't work here.") If the goal is to get the best bang for the buck, and to build a passenger rail network that people will want to build off of in Iowa, that requires paying the extra to upgrade trackage through Iowa City and into Des Moines (and ideally all the way through to Council Bluffs/Omaha.)

 

[Bfputtzman]

To your point on potential boondoggle, I'm suggesting that it is a shorter putt and less expensive to turn a four bedroom home into a five bedroom home than it is to convert a mobile home into a four bedroom home. Don't forget, this conversion needs to occur "lot after lot" - aka mile after mile. I think it also matters who your general contractor is, and your options are fixed here: IAIS owns the property on the currently proposed route from Wyanet, IL to Des Moines and beyond while BNSF owns the path I suggested. Negotiations with IAIS have apparently been ongoing for a decade+/-, and I don't find that surprising given IAIS took over a bankrupt and dilapidated railroad in the 80's and only circa 2005 did they increase their maximum operating speed from 25-mph to 40-mph... 79-mph+ with people is a different animal. Meanwhile, BNSF has hundreds (thousands?) of miles of 90-mph passenger, the technology to maintain it there, and has a pre-BNSF history of running over 100-mph. If UP would accept upgrades to 110-mph, who says BNSF wouldn't accept same for 110-125?

Reason I focused my comments on Des Moines is I think it is the path to winning over Iowa, if there is a path. Des Moines is not only the biggest metro area in the state by far, but it is also the state capitol. As a previous commenter suggested, the state legislature needs to be on board, so perhaps the best way to get there is to benefit them upfront - not at some point potentially, maybe, down the road. Wikipedia quotes Des Moines' MSA population at 719k, more than the MSA's of the Quad Cities (382k) and Iowa City (177k) combined. Des Moines is almost exactly half of Milwaukee (1.6M), more on that in a minute.

To your point, IL plans to get to Moline (Quad Cities). They also plan to get to Peoria (398k). They could continue down the path of two host railroads (BNSF to Wyanet & IAIS to Moline... three in the case to Peoria), or they could utilize BNSF-only via Galesburg to access Moline (and Peoria). It's true that a CHI-GAL-MOL route is longer by mileage, but a 1940 CB&Q timetable shows a CHI-GAL trip time of 2h 12m. Max speed then was likely in the 100-105-mph range, so if modern equipment ran at 110-125-mph, trip times right at 2h are feasible (and would shave ~40-mins off 8 existing Amtrak trains already in that lane). Meanwhile, it's only 52-miles from GAL-MOL (and it's coincidentally 52-miles from GAL-PEO), so if those trips can be covered in no more than one hour, total trip time to MOL (or PEO) is 3h which is competitive with auto and air (with security, etc.) and even with 1950's era Rock Island timetables showing 2h 55m to 3h 20m for those destination. Then there's the added benefit of dealing with only one host railroad and no in-route handoffs. Finally, with all those destinations joining at GAL, you'd have 1.7M with high-speed access to CHI (more than Milwaukee) and better connectivity to western destinations (Kansas City, Omaha, Quincy, etc.). In fact, that 40-minute improvement would reduce CHI-KC trip times to around 6.5h which is more than an hour faster than driving.

That's not a boondoggle. That's a network.

 

[jebr]

That's not a boondoggle. That's a network.

That's also a very IL-centric network, with most of the benefits serving Illinois (or, to a lesser extent, other non-Iowa destinations.) Much of the speed improvements and arguments you detail are good for a national or Midwest regional network, but aren't particularly relevant to an Iowa legislature that's pretty anti-passenger rail at this point.

At least in my anecdotal experiences (family/friends in IA, went to school in northwest IA for a few years) the demand for a rail line is just as much to connect Iowa City to a passenger rail network as it is to connect Des Moines. Yes, Iowa City is smaller, but when you include the neighboring Cedar Rapids area you're looking at about 444k in that larger metro area, including one of the two largest state universities. The university connection is a key ridership component - while you pretty much need a car almost anywhere you live in Iowa, a college student is one of the few demographics that could reasonably live without a vehicle in Iowa (since most things are on campus or connected to the campus shuttle bus) and also have a strong inter-city transportation demand (getting home to visit family/friends, vacation, etc.) A lot of students could use it over weekends to get home, even if that meant their parents or friends had to pick them up at one of the stations along the way. IIRC, there's also a decently large Chicago-area student base at University of Iowa, which would use even one that's primarily eastward-focused and be bringing in tuition dollars to Iowa.

Basically all the other listed destinations, especially Omaha and Kansas City, would be much, much longer via a train connection in Galesburg vs. driving there or even taking the limited intercity bus services that already exist. Yes, you connect to a decent chunk of Illinois, but that's not as appealing as being able to get to Iowa City or even the Quad Cities quickly. Yes, it's easier to upgrade that four-bedroom home to a five-bedroom home, but if it's a home that no one wants to live in, it's better to spend the time and effort to go from the mobile home to the five-bedroom home that's much more likely to be lived in and fully used, especially since every step along the way uses the home well.

 

[Siegmund]

I think we need maps to make this clear to those of us who don't have existing and historic trackage in Iowa committed to memory.

Attached is a scan of the Iowa map from the 1948 railroad atlas (available as a reprint in the 1990s, and possibly still now, from rail-oriented book places.)

I have highlighted the ex-C&NW route through Ames and Cedar Rapids that was considered for a CZ reroute in the late 80s in Green; the ex-CRI&P route through Des Moines and Iowa city in red; the current ex-CB&Q route (and bfputtzman's proposed route to Des Moines) in blue. It is the CRIP route that crosses into Illinois at the Quad Cities, but as mentioned upthread, it's far and away the most expensive route to upgrade in Iowa.

As I recall from the 80s discussion, the C&NW route was expected to have better online ridership in Iowa than the CB&Q route was, but inertia took over (and it was a less desirable route in Illinois.) In a world where Quad Cities service already existed, I can imagine Quad Cities - Iowa City - Cedar Rapids - ex-C&NW as a viable route serving population centers in both states. In our real world, I can just barely imagine someone paying to upgrade Quad Cities to Iowa City in the 2030s...

The bfputtzman idea for Des Moines service is appealing in its way too, if we are emphasizing upgrading frequency. I'm reminded of the way there has sometimes been one Boston-Philadelphia or NYC-Syracuse train, too early/late in the day for a Boston-Washington or NYC-Buffalo train to fit in daylight. I can imagine a 3/day scheme where the eastbound lineup is something like Des Moines 7a-chicago 1pm; CZ omaha 6a-chicago 3pm; new day train omaha noon - chicago 9pm; eastbound chicago 9am - omaha 6pm, CZ chicago 2pm - omaha 11pm, chicago 4pm - des moines 10pm.

 

[Agent]

I think we need maps to make this clear to those of us who don't have existing and historic trackage in Iowa committed to memory.

Fortunately the Iowa Department of Transportation has several railroad maps: https://iowadot.gov/iowarail/iowa-freight-rail/railroad-maps. My favorite is the interactive one that can show both current and abandoned trackage and clicking on a line can show its history of ownership.

 

[Willbridge]

Attached is a scan of the Iowa map from the 1948 railroad atlas (available as a reprint in the 1990s, and possibly still now, from rail-oriented book places.)

I have highlighted the ex-C&NW route through Ames and Cedar Rapids that was considered for a CZ reroute in the late 80s in Green; the ex-CRI&P route through Des Moines and Iowa city in red; the current ex-CB&Q route (and bfputtzman's proposed route to Des Moines) in blue. It is the CRIP route that crosses into Illinois at the Quad Cities, but as mentioned upthread, it's far and away the most expensive route to upgrade in Iowa.

As I recall from the 80s discussion, the C&NW route was expected to have better online ridership in Iowa than the CB&Q route was, but inertia took over (and it was a less desirable route in Illinois.) In a world where Quad Cities service already existed, I can imagine Quad Cities - Iowa City - Cedar Rapids - ex-C&NW as a viable route serving population centers in both states. In our real world, I can just barely imagine someone paying to upgrade Quad Cities to Iowa City in the 2030s...

The bfputtzman idea for Des Moines service is appealing in its way too, if we are emphasizing upgrading frequency. I'm reminded of the way there has sometimes been one Boston-Philadelphia or NYC-Syracuse train, too early/late in the day for a Boston-Washington or NYC-Buffalo train to fit in daylight. I can imagine a 3/day scheme where the eastbound lineup is something like Des Moines 7a-chicago 1pm; CZ omaha 6a-chicago 3pm; new day train omaha noon - chicago 9pm; eastbound chicago 9am - omaha 6pm, CZ chicago 2pm - omaha 11pm, chicago 4pm - des moines 10pm.

A study of moving Trains 5/6/25/26/35/36 was done in 1987 at the request of communities along the North Western line. Costs of equipping Amtrak engines for C&NW cab signals and establishing a new crew base at Clinton argued against doing that. Discussion of running on the former C&NW line as a second DEN<CHI train continued into the early 90's.

Only the first step of the 1991 study was undertaken, and that was extension of the Pioneer from Ogden to Denver. I'm waiting now for Train 6; had things gone differently in the Clinton cutbacks, I might have been waiting for Trains 26/36 instead. Proposed new stops were Geneva, DeKalb, Sterling or Dixon, Clinton, Cedar Rapids, Marshalltown, Ames, and Carroll, with a bus connection Ames<>DesMoines.

I may be wrong, but I think the 1991 study was the last time that Amtrak did an honest study of a long-distance route without throwing in the cost of a moon landing as one of the expenses.

 

[railiner]

A study of moving Trains 5/6/25/26/35/36 was done in 1987 at the request of communities along the North Western line.

I was invited aboard Amtrak VP Jim Larson's "test train", which ran from Denver all the way to Chicago, which started on the BN from Denver on the CZ route to Brush, CO, then up thru Sterling to Sidney, NE on their mainly coal train route. From Sidney, we entered the UP all the way to Omaha, and Council Bluffs. From there, we used the C&NW the rest of the way to Chicago, and via MILW tracks to the North side of Union Station.

All along the way, the word must have gotten out, as we only stopped at service and crew change points, yet there were substantial crowds trackside, to see a rare passenger train pass by...

 

[railpost]

I recall that in the early to mid 1960s the Union Pacific railroad was seriously considering purchasing or merging with the Rock Island railroad however the bureaucratic process of having ICC hearings (and I'm sure that there were objections from other railroads as well.) that by the time that the acquisition was approved it was already too late as the Rock Island had already detiorated so that the Union Pacific by then had lost interest. It would have been perfect (in my opinion) had the Union Pacific been able to acquire the Rock Island early on. I find it to be very ironic that the Chicago and Northwestern was the Union Pacifics first partner for moving the UP's trains into Chicago and then the Milwaukee Road took over in late 1955 and now that ex CN&W is part of the UP and the Milwaukee Road is Iowa is mainly abandoned. I can't help but wonder that if the Rock Island had been up graded and maintained to modern standards if they would have been able to run their passenger trains at comparable schedules and speeds as the CN&W and the Milwaukee Road once did as the ex Rock Island route (in terms of population served) was really the ideal east to west (cross Iowa route). Even the Rail Passengers Association has had the ex Rock Island route through Des Moine and Iowa City as their recommended "wish list" route through Iowa in addition to the present ex CB & Q route being used.