True -- but you overestimate the cost of adding service to the NCH. And you underestimate the degree to which it would be adding service on existing routes. First of all, it would share all facilities from Seattle (or Portland, whichever is chosen) to Sandpoint ID and from Minneapolis/St Paul to Chicago. And also at Fargo. (And depending on the chosen Minnesota route, also from Fargo to Minneapolis/St Paul.)
Obviously, you have not even availed yourself to the information on this that is available online.
The 2009 North Coast Hiawatha study and the BSPRA study both indicate the route to be via Staples and Yakima. Due to high traffic and limited ability to add trackage on route via Wenatchee (Cascade Tunnel), the route across Washington definitely will be via Yakima. Therefore, common stations with the Empire Builder would be Fargo and east, Sandpoint, Spokane, Pasco, and Seattle. The 2009 study pegged the cost at $1.0432 billion, with station costs at $17.6 million for 17 “new” stations. Subsequent other studies including one from the State of Washington have identified additional stations. The 2009 study understated costs in three specific areas: Station cost, not stating the cost of a signaled main line track at Laurel Yard as identified in the study (page 32), and that infrastructure cost between Auburn and Pasco reflected train frequency during the Great Recession (2009) and reduced freight traffic, the opposite of what is true today.
Most of the stations on the line still exist, and basically require the usual "patch up the crumbling platform and add a ramp". Some would require "pour a new platform". Very few would be staffed. Station buildings are generally the responsibility of the cities these days anyway; many still exist and some would probably be revived, but it's not a necessary component of the project (see: Texarkana).
This is a vast oversimplification of reality. Except where shared with the Empire Builder, ALL (not some) would require an ADA-compliant platform. For reference, the State of Washington in 2009 opened two new stations, one at Leavenworth for a cost of $1 million, and also at Stanwood for $5 million. The Stanwood station required additional track and signal work. Neither facility has an indoor shelter or restrooms. In 2020, Amtrak completed a new platform (long enough for an entire train) at Shelby, Montana for a cost of nearly $1 million. The “Feasibility of an East-West Intercity Passenger Rail System for Washington State” study done by the state of Washington pegged the station cost of just six stations in 2020 (Auburn, Cle Elum, Ellensburg, Yakima, Toppenish, and Pasco) at $107,834,770. Several stops proposed by the State of Washington and the BSPRA have no station structure at all. Jamestown, ND no longer exists, and Miles City and Bozeman have deteriorated to the point new structures would be warranted. Other locations have been repurposed, so the cost is highly variable. Suffice it to say that in Montana and North Dakota, a heated indoor facility would be a must. Whether a station is the responsibility of a city or other entity is completely irrelevant; regardless of who owns or maintains it, that cost is included. For 20 or so new stops, $300 million or more would be a lowball amount.
As far as I can tell there would be zero new mechanical facilities needed. Three or four new crewbases with the Willmar route, one fewer if the existing St Cloud route is used.
Currently the Empire Builder has inspection points at Minot and Spokane. Potable water is available there and at Havre.
Minot is 940 miles from Chicago (inspection points at least every 1,000 miles), so on the North Coast Hiawatha route the next logical mechanical inspection point would be Mandan, where BNSF trains are also inspected. But Mandan is over 1,000 miles from Spokane, so a second inspection point would be required, such as Missoula. In addition to a facility to accommodate carmen and their equipment, watering facilities would need to be added.
This many stations should be $24-$60 million. Peanuts. The track & signal upgrades would swamp this.
$24-$60 million would be peanuts. But that’s been disproven. Track and signal infrastructure would undoubtedly be much more. Traffic patterns have changed dramatically from the 2009 study.
The three Minnesota stations could be skipped in favor of the existing route via St Cloud if Minnesota support was lacking or CP didn't play ball.
This is in reference to neroden’s post:
“This is probably overkill. Ignoring the already-existing stations, a more reasonable startup list would be:
Willmar
Morris
Breckenridge…”
Though we know that the proposals don’t include a routing via Willmar, it’s interesting that neroden evidently thinks that route belongs to CP. It is BNSF.
Frankly, I think it's going to be easier to get the "new to Amtrak" track upgraded and agreement to run one train a day on it -- than it will be to get host railroad agreement on the parts where this will be the second daily Amtrak train. I expect the demands for double and triple tracking from Chicago to Fargo to be high, and likewise from Sandpoint to Seattle (or Portland) –
Well, the infrastructure funding is largely in place for the Chicago-St. Paul segment (
Press Releases • All Aboard Minnesota)
The remainder remains to be seen.
while I expect the plain track from Fargo to Sandpoint via Helena to be much less contentious. Why? Less freight traffic on the latter.
Plain track?
Anyway, less freight traffic is irrelevant. The route also has less capacity, and steeper grades (even in North Dakota), but most notably west of Livingston, Montana where there are five major grades. With many heavy unit trains and two intact helper districts on Montana Rail Link, operating a passenger train – even with less traffic than the Empire Builder route to the north – is more challenging, and potentially more expensive when maintaining fluidity.
