MN and WI ask for study of second MSP-CHI train

[Anderson]

(the FEC is likely trying to backdoor freight access to Tampa in opposition to CSX...at least, that's my guess of the game here). So it could be either (or both).

Yes, I've long thought that is part of the reason for this sudden interest in passenger service. Yes, it wouldn't surprise me if the passenger service does rather well, but I still don't see it as a huge money maker for them, if it makes money at all. The passenger service opens doors that might not otherwise be easy to open, even as it comes with its own baggage that could still hurt them.

Think of the inverse of the statement, "Those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it." For the FEC, it could well be that the situation is that "Those who know history are choosing to repeat it."

If you go back to Falgler, he used the fEC to promote south Florida. He really did not care how profitably or unprofitable the railroad was by itself so long as the some of all holdings was profitable. If I recall correctly, the FEC never paid a stock dividend until several years into the post paseenger service time. If the FEC has even a fraction of the land holding that it had a century ago, if the introduction of passenger service helps promote the area and increase the value or income from or both of their land holdings, the passenger service losses would look like small change to them.

You raise a good point: Though they've sold off many of the landholdings (I think there was a partial separation during one of the mergers/acquisitions). Even if TOD isn't the objective, they do own about a 9-acre piece of land surrounding a likely station location in Miami that would certainly appreciate in value with a passenger terminal there (and the station itself might well make money, too). Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if they can get something going at the intermediate stations and/or Orlando (even if it is adjacent to the airport, enough of the station's concessions will likely be more accessible to the public than the airport's).

Mind you, I suspect they will be expecting a positive cash flow of some sort on the passenger operations themselves, but the presence of lots of incidental benefits and/or attached projects may well serve to offset potentially thin margins and risks of losses here. The trains don't need to make much money to justify the capital costs if there are other benefits to be had. What's more, this may well make for a convenient way to round up some funding for PTC.

 

[jis]

I suspect that FEC's forays into passenger service to Orlando and then onto Tampa has as much to do with them getting freight access along that corridor as it does with anything to do with passenger service. Just for running freight trains no one would give them access to public land on highway medians, without which they have no hope of getting across the wetlands in the first half of this century between Cocoa and Orlando. The only way to get that is to provide a public service in the form of high speed passenger service.

 

[CHamilton]

Now published:

Evaluation of a second daily intercity passenger rail frequency between Minnesota and Chicago

Annual ridership on the additional daily train, with a morning departure from Chicago and a mid-day departure from St. Paul, is estimated at about 155,000 passengers.
The study estimates annual state operating support for the Chicago to St. Paul initial service would be approximately $6.6 million.

 

[jphjaxfl]

I suspect that FEC's forays into passenger service to Orlando and then onto Tampa has as much to do with them getting freight access along that corridor as it does with anything to do with passenger service. Just for running freight trains no one would give them access to public land on highway medians, without which they have no hope of getting across the wetlands in the first half of this century between Cocoa and Orlando. The only way to get that is to provide a public service in the form of high speed passenger service.

FEC has no plans run any passenger service. All Aboard Florida will operate passenger service from Orlando to Mto iami using FEC tracks. FEC operating freight trains to Tampa won't happen.

 

[NW cannonball]

Here's the report - with PDF's

http://dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/mn-chicago-study.html

Notable is that MNDOT and WISDOT were joined by LaCrosse County, Wisconsin in requesting yet another evaluation of this potentially worthwhile upgrade on the MSP-CHI corridor. i.e MNDOT and WISDOT and LaCrosse county paid for the report.

The report itself -- read it -- might happen.

 

[NW cannonball]

Now published:
Evaluation of a second daily intercity passenger rail frequency between Minnesota and Chicago

Annual ridership on the additional daily train, with a morning departure from Chicago and a mid-day departure from St. Paul, is estimated at about 155,000 passengers.
The study estimates annual state operating support for the Chicago to St. Paul initial service would be approximately $6.6 million.

 



Oops, started another thread on this news. Hope we get 2-a-day service MSP-CHI before I die.

EDIT: We merged your new thread into this one.

 

[afigg]

Ok, so after 3 years, we can resurrect this thread because the feasibility study finally came out. Looking at the reports, why did it take 3 years to produce them?

Amtrak posted a new release on the study: Amtrak Feasibility Study of Additional Service Between St. Paul and Chicago Shows Promise. Excerpt:

The purpose of the second daily train is to provide improved eastbound reliability and increased train frequency. The study includes an assessment of schedules, ridership, revenue, infrastructure investments, operating costs, and equipment needs associated with adding a second daily train between Minnesota and Chicago. The study assumes the second round trip train would use the same route as the current Empire Builder service between Chicago and St. Paul with the addition of a Milwaukee Airport Rail Station stop.

Annual ridership on the additional daily train, with a morning departure from Chicago and a mid-day departure from St. Paul, is estimated at about 155,000 passengers. This is an increase over the current Empire Builder ridership of approximately 104,000 between St. Paul and Chicago, with departures from St. Paul in the morning and Chicago in the afternoon. The top speed for passenger trains in this corridor is 79 mph.

There are anticipated capital investment costs for infrastructure capacity improvements, with a planning level cost estimate of approximately $95 million for the Chicago to St. Paul scenario. The St. Cloud and Minneapolis scenarios had higher infrastructure costs. If new equipment is used, there would be an additional $46.4 million cost.

The study estimates annual state operating support (the difference between ticket revenue and operating and capital equipment costs) for the Chicago to St. Paul initial service would be approximately $6.6 million. The cost share among the funding parties for the service would be determined at a later date. Current federal regulations limit Amtrak participation to covering the first 15 percent of the operating cost. Estimates are in 2014 dollars.

So, the capital improvement costs for the low end upgrades are $95 million. BTW, $10 million of that is for upgrades on the Hiawatha corridor that are needed to add more daily CHI-MIL trains, so that portion may get paid for anyway by WI. The question is whether there is enough political support in MN to pay the lion's share of the $95 million, because I doubt that WI under Gov. Walker would contribute much to passenger service pass Milwaukee. OTOH, St. Paul now has a shiny restored train station and a connecting light rail line for local transit connections, so those features should help build support for a daily corridor service.

it is worth noting that Virginia is spending $96 million of state money to extend train service to Roanoke as a point of comparison.

Another observation: the proposed 9:25 AM departure from Chicago to St. Paul would not allow connections from any IL or MI corridor trains. Perhaps after the CHI-STL and CHI-DET upgrades are completed, there might be an Lincoln and Wolverine service early morning train that would get to CHI early enough to allow for a connection to the alternate 10:15 AM CHI departure.

 

[NW cannonball]

Thanks, Penny

What surprised me, was that LaCrosse county actually paid in part for the report. La Crosse is a small city on the EB route - and a pleasant place to stay at, I can say for sure (on the Mississippi, amazing good hunting and fishing, super low crime, inexpensive lodgings, yada yada.)

Maybe the city fathers and mothers have a clue - another train, another few millions for the local economy.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I suspect that FEC's forays into passenger service to Orlando and then onto Tampa has as much to do with them getting freight access along that corridor as it does with anything to do with passenger service. Just for running freight trains no one would give them access to public land on highway medians, without which they have no hope of getting across the wetlands in the first half of this century between Cocoa and Orlando. The only way to get that is to provide a public service in the form of high speed passenger service.

FEC has no plans run any passenger service. All Aboard Florida will operate passenger service ...

I don't get it. Isn't this a distinction without a difference?

Who owns the FEC? Who owns All Aboard Florida? Isn't it the same corporate parent?

 

[WoodyinNYC]

... the feasibility study finally came out. Looking at the reports, why did it take 3 years to produce them?

Amtrak posted a new release on the study: Amtrak Feasibility Study of Additional Service Between St. Paul and Chicago Shows Promise. Excerpt:

...

Annual ridership on the additional daily train, with a morning departure from Chicago and a mid-day departure from St. Paul, is estimated at about 155,000 passengers. ...

....

The study estimates annual state operating support ... for the Chicago to St. Paul initial service would be approximately $6.6 million. ...

The proposed 9:25 AM departure from Chicago to St. Paul would not allow connections from any IL or MI corridor trains. Perhaps after the CHI-STL and CHI-DET upgrades are completed ...

A good point. And you're right. The currently favored schedule would be cutting it impossibly close.

The first St Louis departure is now 4:35 a.m., God help them, arriving Chicago at 10 a.m. The current Phase One upgrades are supposed to cut 40 minutes, so the same St Louis departure would mean a 9:20 a.m. arrival.

An even earlier departure, God help them, could work if or when the Lincoln Service gains a couple of additional frequencies, like having a 4 a.m. AND a 5 a.m. departure. (Obviously there's a market for an early, early train getting into Union Station a close to the start of the business day.) But no added frequencies have yet been announced.

Or wait (and wait) for Phase Two upgrades, double-tracking the middle 75% of the route, upgrades Joliet-Chicago and Alton-St Louis, and the thru-Springfield work. Well, that's a Billion or more away even if they started tomorrow. And it won't start any time soon in this political climate.

On the Wolverines, the first Detroit departure is now 5:43 a.m., God help them, then running express Dearborn 6:08 a.m. /Ann Arbor 6:41 a.m./Battle Creek at 8:17 a.m./Kalamazoo 8:50 a.m./Chicago at 10:12 a.m. The current Phase One upgrades are supposed to cut 50 minutes, so the same Detroit departure would mean a 9:22 a.m. arrival into Union Station. Not good enuff.

Or wait (and wait) for Phase Two upgrades, mostly South of the Lake but also a few projects within Michigan. Well, that's a Billion or two away even if they started tomorrow. But incremental upgrades SOTL, a bridge here, a few miles of dedicated passenger tracks over there, could shave minutes that Chicago arrival.

Until another two or three Billion is spent on these routes, passengers from Alton and Springfield, from Dearborn and Battle Creek, will pay for earlier arrivals in Chicago by getting up in the dark of night, God help them.

By the time this second frequency to St Paul gets ready to go, the Wolverine and Lincoln Service schedules will have been tweaked to make connections in Chicago, however painful those tweaks may be.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

...

Amtrak posted a new release on the study: Amtrak Feasibility Study of Additional Service Between St. Paul and Chicago Shows Promise. Excerpt:

...

… Annual ridership on the additional daily train, with a morning departure from Chicago and a mid-day departure from St. Paul, is estimated at about 155,000 passengers.

...

The study estimates annual state operating support … would be approximately $6.6 million. ... regulations limit Amtrak participation to covering the first 15 percent of the operating cost. ...

So, the capital improvement costs for the low end upgrades are $95 million. ... The question is whether there is enough political support in MN to pay the lion's share ...

I'm equally worried about the operating subsidy required. A lousy $6.6 million becomes $5.6 million for the states after Amtrak's 15% share. But with 155,000 riders that still works out to $36 per passenger (if I'm doing my 8th grade math correctly). And a $36 per pax subsidy sounds pretty awful when you're trying to get yearly funding from the Legislature.

As for comparables, there actually aren't any once-a-day corridor services overlapping long distance routes aside from the Lynchburger! Other corridors are all twice a day each way or more. Amtrak's "long distance" Palmetto is comparable too. Of course, both the Lynchburger and the Palmetto are reportedly doing very, very well, with no mention of any $36 per-person subsidies.

Personally I like the proposal. But proponents should be ready to argue that a second daily is the first step to more corridor trains, and the per rider subsidy will drop with each added train. As for the puny $95 million in capital for upgrades, advocates can point out that Minnesota could do like Wisconsin and build a $1 Billion highway interchange instead.

 

[mlhughes0522]

CHI-MSP HIAWATHA/empire builder

329 8 7. 342.

CHI 6:00a 3:30p. 2:00p 9:25p

GLN 6:22a 3:10p. 2:22p 9:00p

SVT 7:00a 2:40p. 3:00p 8:23p 6a-

MKA 7:14a ------ ------ 8:10p

MKE 7:40a. 2:00p 3:40p 8:00p

CBS 7:50a 12:47p 3:50p 7:47p

POG 8:21a 12:17p 4:21p 7:17p

WDL 8:39a 11:58a 4:39p 6:58p

TOH 9:17a 11:16a 5:17p 6:16p

LSE10:01a 10:28a 6:01p 5:28p

WIN10:37a. 9:50a 6:37p 4:50p

RDW11:40a 8:50a 6:40p 3:50p

MSP12:45p 8:00a 7:55p 3:00p

Hiawatha 329/342 would have cab,cafe,coach,coach,coach coach,eng

Empire builder will add stop SVT

 

[Lake Country]

Very unlikely that EB adds SVT. WiDOT would rather see more stops at MKA to increase traffic to General Mitchell. 30% of pax come from No. Illinois.

 

[neroden]

Glad the study finally came out. *But the scheduling is all wrong*. Midday departures are madness.

With a day train running, this is how I think it should go:

Eastbound:

-- Empire Builder departs St. Paul late afternoon or evening, arrives Chicago morning. Daytime service to St. Cloud & Fargo!

-- Day train departs St. Paul morning, arrives Chicago afternoon, but is actually *on time* unlike the EB. (Takes EB's old slot.)

Westbound:

-- Empire Builder departs Chicago evening, arrives St. Paul morning. Daytime service to St. Cloud & Fargo!

-- Day train departs Chicago morning, arrives St. Paul afternoon. (Same as in study.)

This makes it possible, if unlikely, to take day trips in both directions. More importantly, it puts Wisconsin daytime service on the *more reliable* train rather than the one coming all the way from Seattle.

I believe there would be better passenger numbers and lower subsidies for the day train with my schedule. They already discovered in the study that shifting departure from St. Paul back from 2:25PM to 12:25PM increased ridership... earlier departures are better here.

I also believe this would improve Empire Builder ridership. There are some very complex knock-on effects on the schedule, but I still think it would do better. More Seattle-Spokane and Portland-Spokane riders, more North Dakota ridership, better Chicago timing for people travelling past St. Paul. Some riders going one way on the EB and the other way on the day train. The 'lost' Wisconsin daytime ridership moves to the new train, so the main loss is part of the Montana ridership; the

One downside is having the Empire Builder running through Metra rush-hour traffic, but at least it's in the rush-hour direction, rather than opposite to it. This could be ameliorated eastbound by arriving after rush hour (say, 10 AM); the unfortunate 2AM departure from St. Paul could be alleviated by moving a lot of schedule padding to St. Paul, moving servicing to St. Paul, and generally pushing the *arrival* time back; this would increase the likelihood of "hitting the slot" on CP when there are delays west of there.

Westbound, you'd want to depart quite late anyway; to arrive St. Paul no earlier than 5 AM you'd want to leave at 9:15 PM or so.

The other downside is nighttime service to the touristy bits of Montana.

The westbound:

Chicago 9:15 PM

St. Paul 5 AM

Williston 6:42 PM

Havre 11 PM

West Glacier 5 AM

Spokane 10 AM

Portland 6:40 PM

Seattle 6:55 PM

So sorry Shelby/Cut Bank/Browning/East Glacier/Essex, but I think St Cloud/Staples/Detroit Lakes/Fargo/Grand Forks gets more passengers.

Eastbound:

Seattle 7:30 AM

Portland 7:30 AM

Spokane 4:15 PM

West Glacier 11 PM

Havre 4 AM (yuck)

Williston 10 AM

St. Paul 2 AM (arrive with extra padding)

Chicago 10 AM

This also creates daytime Seattle-Spokane and Portland-Spokane scheduling, though not sufficient for a day trip either way. I think this would also increase ridership. All connections through Seattle and Portland would be overnight, but it is what it is.

This may also place one of the meets on single-track, which is not something I have sufficient information to check on.

But you get the idea. I think the numbers would look better with this change.

Also, if there are delays, (a) Chicago arrivals still connect eastward, (b) Chicago departures still connect westward, © West Coast connections are already overnight. So less disruption.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I'm still hung up on the $36 per rider subsidy. A hard thing to sell.

But Nathanael's alternative schedule points to the solution. Minnesota should go for adding two more trains from the jump. Just two trains a day each way isn't a good business plan.

As I pointed out above, there aren't really any comparables. All but one or two of the corridor trains overlapping LD routes run only once a day plus the LD train. Illinois has four to St Louis plus the Texas Eagle, two to Carbondale plus the CONO, two out towards Quincy plus the Zephyr and the Southwest Chief, and several frequencies to Milwaukee plus the Empire Builder. A bunch of state rains run NYC-Albany plus the Lake Shore and Albany-Buffalo has three plus the Lake Shore. Four Cascades plus the Coast Starlight. Etc.

Perhaps the closest comparable comes from very recent history: NC started with one Piedmont plus the Carolinian. When it added another run of the Piedmont, for a 50% increase in frequencies/capacity, the Raleigh-Charlotte passenger count doubled, that is, a 100% increase. And that with a mid-day 11:45 a.m. departure that Nathanael doesn't like so much.

Of course, a third frequency will pain the BNSF and require more costly upgrades. But as they study notes, a package of upgrades can benefit the freights and the new passenger trains. Let's try to work it out.

 

[jis]

Of course, a third frequency will pain the BNSF and require more costly upgrades. But as they study notes, a package of upgrades can benefit the freights and the new passenger trains. Let's try to work it out.

How is an additional frequency between St. Paul and Chicago going to pain BNSF when it doe not even run on BNSF? Or were you planning to run the new frequencies on BNSF?

At present the only involvement of BNSF between SPUD and Chicago is on the short jointly operated segment in the vicinity of SPUD (SPUD to CP Hastings). The rest is all CP.

 

[Anderson]

I'm still hung up on the $36 per rider subsidy. A hard thing to sell.

But Nathanael's alternative schedule points to the solution. Minnesota should go for adding two more trains from the jump. Just two trains a day each way isn't a good business plan.

As I pointed out above, there aren't really any comparables. All but one or two of the corridor trains overlapping LD routes run only once a day plus the LD train. Illinois has four to St Louis plus the Texas Eagle, two to Carbondale plus the CONO, two out towards Quincy plus the Zephyr and the Southwest Chief, and several frequencies to Milwaukee plus the Empire Builder. A bunch of state rains run NYC-Albany plus the Lake Shore and Albany-Buffalo has three plus the Lake Shore. Four Cascades plus the Coast Starlight. Etc.

Perhaps the closest comparable comes from very recent history: NC started with one Piedmont plus the Carolinian. When it added another run of the Piedmont, for a 50% increase in frequencies/capacity, the Raleigh-Charlotte passenger count doubled, that is, a 100% increase. And that with a mid-day 11:45 a.m. departure that Nathanael doesn't like so much.

Of course, a third frequency will pain the BNSF and require more costly upgrades. But as they study notes, a package of upgrades can benefit the freights and the new passenger trains. Let's try to work it out.

Well, and the cost of going to three trains/day right out might well be less than going to two trains/day and then going to three trains/day.

Something to consider is that a midday frequency is not inherently bad (witness the loads of pax boarding NB trains from RVR between about 1100 and 1400 when there are four earlier and two later departures). As a stand-alone option, however, there are issues with one.

I tend to agree with flipping the Builder around; if anything, doing so might increase the number of workable to/from connections on each end (you'd have a 12-hour connection from the Cap and about a 9-hour one to the Cap; on the West Coast, SEA and PDX might both allow legal connections to/from the Cascades and Starlight alike.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Of course, a third frequency will pain the BNSF and require more costly upgrades. But as they study notes, a package of upgrades can benefit the freights and the new passenger trains. Let's try to work it out.

How is an additional frequency between St. Paul and Chicago going to pain BNSF when it doe not even run on BNSF? Or were you planning to run the new frequencies on BNSF?

At present the only involvement of BNSF between SPUD and Chicago is on the short jointly operated segment in the vicinity of SPUD (SPUD to CP Hastings). The rest is all CP.

Thank you for your tacky nitpicking. Whatever occupies your mind.

The point is that track upgrades will benefit both passenger rail and freight rail, NO MATTER WHAT COMPANY OWNS THE ROUTE.

 

[XHRTSP]

But Nathanael's alternative schedule points to the solution. Minnesota should go for adding two more trains from the jump. Just two trains a day each way isn't a good business plan..

In my fantasy world if they were to start two trains a day, one would run St Paul-La Crosse-Portage-Madison-Janesville-Beloit-Rockford-Chicago. Scott Walker, if you're reading this, make it happen!

 

[jis]

Of course, a third frequency will pain the BNSF and require more costly upgrades. But as they study notes, a package of upgrades can benefit the freights and the new passenger trains. Let's try to work it out.

How is an additional frequency between St. Paul and Chicago going to pain BNSF when it doe not even run on BNSF? Or were you planning to run the new frequencies on BNSF?

At present the only involvement of BNSF between SPUD and Chicago is on the short jointly operated segment in the vicinity of SPUD (SPUD to CP Hastings). The rest is all CP.

Thank you for your tacky nitpicking. Whatever occupies your mind.

The point is that track upgrades will benefit both passenger rail and freight rail, NO MATTER WHAT COMPANY OWNS THE ROUTE.

For those interested in practical matters and not hung up on ones fragile ego , it does matter, because BNSF is generally more friendly to Amtrak and CP is positively hostile. CP is less likely to react favorably than BNSF, though anything can always be bought for the right price.

Also if the trains ran on BNSF they would not be serving Milwaukee either.

 

[neroden]

It has been noted that the executive summary is bizarrely pessimistic, using the most expensive estimate for annual cost, and using one of the worse estimates for ridership, *even though those two are from different scenarios*. It's a little odd to cherrypick the cost estimate from one scenario and the ridership estimate from another.

Read the study rather than the "executive summary".

 

[jebr]

I also noticed the cost estimate included some projects that are being done this summer.

 

[Anderson]

Well, I read the study. The short version is that there are four options considered, with two options schedule-wise eastbound (departing SPUD at 1225 vs. departing at 1425):
-Terminate at SPUD
-Terminate at Target Field in Minneapolis (adds 20k riders)

-Terminate in St. Cloud, serve Target Field

-Terminate in St. Cloud, serve Fridley in lieu of Target Field

There's not a lot of ridership added by serving St. Cloud (seems to be about 3-5k/yr), which feels a little odd (I'd expect a bit more to be added). The 1225 departures all do better than the 1425 departures (not shocking that they'd all do the same, nor that the later arrival into Chicago probably isn't too popular).

Something did occur to me...the ridership estimates all cap out around 180k/yr, which translates into about 250 pax/train. The project assumes a 280-seat train. I have to wonder if that number would go up noticeably if a provision were made for adding another car (and presumably 90 more seats) at peak times; there aren't many individual trains that can manage numbers like that on capacity like that (the Lynchburger's numbers come amid having, I believe, about 500-650 seats available). I know there's projected turnover en route, etc.

The other thing they might seriously consider is, with this service, allowing seats to be sold MKE/MKA-CHI but keeping caps on sales there (more or less on the basis of discharges at those stations plus seats empty going into MKE). Even if the prices were kept somewhat high there vis-a-vis the Hiawathas, you could probably get 10-20k riders (and a couple hundred grand knocked off the subsidy as a result) for "free".

 

[Palmetto]

Terminating at St. Cloud and serving Target Field will require a back up movement to Minneapolis Jct. Not a long move, but one that's not very operationally smooth. Fridley is basically in the middle of nothing--except the BNSF Northtown Yard!--but it's better than Target Field, I think. There's a wye at St. Cloud that would make it easy to turn the train, too.

I agree with JIS. The attitudes of BNSF and CP are like night and day when it comes to moving passenger trains.

 

[John Bredin]

But Nathanael's alternative schedule points to the solution. Minnesota should go for adding two more trains from the jump. Just two trains a day each way isn't a good business plan..

In my fantasy world if they were to start two trains a day, one would run St Paul-La Crosse-Portage-Madison-Janesville-Beloit-Rockford-Chicago. Scott Walker, if you're reading this, make it happen!

Illinois, with a lot more political will for rail than Wisconsin under Walker, can get a long-planned Chicago-Rockford-Galena-Dubuque train only as far as Rockford in 2015-16 because CHI-Rockford is Metra and (now relatively cooperative!) UP while it's all CP west of Rockford. :blink: