The Pioneer route back in the news

[Anthony V]

Then all they'd need is one end of the line connected to somewhere that other Talgo trainsets are maintained. Hmmm.

There ARE two more Talgo trainsets sitting in Beech Grove. (The ones Wisconsin refused to take delivery on). Maybe those can be used on a Portland-Boise service.

 

[jiml]

Yes, those are the ones that were under discussion.

 

[Woodcut60]

Would love to ride The Pioneer.

 

[Willbridge]

Oregon DOT has published Central & Eastern Oregon Station Report, 2019 edition, which has much useful info, while taking no position on future service. It does define PDX-BOI as being within the federal mileage definition of a corridor. In my first reading I only spotted one fact error (Hinkle Amshack's removal after my 2008 visit, not 2005 as reported in the study). There are spellcheck induced errors, one hilarious, but they may be caught in later issues.

It also evades some "why" questions, but they were outside of the scope of the report.

 

[cocojacoby]

There ARE two more Talgo trainsets sitting in Beech Grove. (The ones Wisconsin refused to take delivery on). Maybe those can be used on a Portland-Boise service.

On the way to Milwaukee for some work and then onward to the Cascades . . . finally!

 

[Seaboard92]

A Talgo would make good sense on a Boise train. But I believe part of the line out of Boise is out of service.

 

[Siegmund]

But I believe part of the line out of Boise is out of service.

Boise is on a loop off of the main line.
Last time I was there, the rails east of Boise had been lifted, but the west half, Meridian-Boise was intact. This is bad news for a restored Pioneer, but theoretically leaves the door open for a Boise-Portland stub service.

I can't imagine a business case for that route, nor can I imagine the state of Idaho ponying up to support it... but we can always hope.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

I can't imagine a business case for that route, nor can I imagine the state of Idaho ponying up to support it... but we can always hope.

As a for profit business case? No one does not exist just like one does not exist for all of the other state supported corridors.

Boise is the Capitol, and a big college town that is growing big time. I loved my visit there earlier this year. Really lovely town.

I’m quite sure the ridership numbers would be high.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Photos from about 9 months ago. Station is lovely and is in line with the State Capitol. A Union Pacific Steam Locomotive is on display.

 

[Siegmund]

I’m quite sure the ridership numbers would be high.

I don't share your enthusiasm.

Yes, it's a college town, and a lovely station.

But we have a city pair with frequent direct air service and an interstate that can be driven in 6 or 7 hours, vs. a train line that took 11 when Amtrak ran it before and is not likely to be faster today (Talgo might help a little - but every other Amtrak train on UP tracks is slower now than it was 20 years ago); has only one medium-size enroute city; and, maybe worst of all, as a day train will have no connections to the rest of the national system. It might very well do better as an overnight train than a day train, with connections N and S from Portland, and not directly competing with bus and air for the overnight market.

If I went looking for city pairs ~500 miles apart to add train service to, Boise-Portland would not make my top hundred.

There is, incidentally, an impressive success story in the past 10 years, the Salt Lake Express bus service from Idaho Falls to Salt Lake - several frequencies a day, comfortable seats, free wifi onboard. Some service continuing north to western Montana. I hear it has recently started to serve Boise also. I remember endless discussions and negotiations about running the Desert Wind's spare coach and diner to Idaho Falls "for free" (the equipment and the crew base were already sitting there in Salt Lake, and only Pocatello-Idaho Falls didn't already have Amtrak service)... and much as I would have enjoyed that as kid... I'll be the first to admit the bus is providing a much better service.

 

[Anderson]

As a for profit business case? No one does not exist just like one does not exist for all of the other state supported corridors.

Boise is the Capitol, and a big college town that is growing big time. I loved my visit there earlier this year. Really lovely town.

I’m quite sure the ridership numbers would be high.

Ok, I've got to disagree on the lack of a case existing for all of the other corridors. The Lynchburger, in particular, has often shown a very strong profit margin and I strongly suspect that were we in 1974 instead of 2019 NS would be looking to acquire equipment to expand service. Note that the numbers for that train are such that it probably covers the cost of equipment acquisition.*

The other VA services are in a similar boat to varying degrees (though the question of the Richmond/Newport News/Norfolk trains is inherently rather tangled at the moment owing to the mid-year schedule shuffle), but taken as a bundle you have operating costs of $51.8m and operating revenue of $64.2m (and thus an operating ratio in the ballpark of 80%)**. That is probably enough to cover equipment orders; the question of track improvements is trickier, but at the same time that question is muddled by a tangle of questions involving the mixed use of any improvements (freight, commuter, and intercity trains all arguably getting benefits) and the question of what improvements would be merited versus what is being demanded by the host(s).

For the record, I do also believe that on the numbers available, the Norfolk extension is probably creeping up on a point where it justifies its full costs. The margins on equipment costs for the three affected routes (Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk) probably aren't quite there (at current margins, the operating profit would probably be sitting somewhere over $200m over 25 years...definitely enough to cover probable equipment needs, but we could go back and forth as to just what those needs are versus what share should "belong" to Amtrak for the portion of service north of Washington) but it seems like they're pretty close since I think the cost of the Norfolk extension was in the $100m ballpark per the agreement of NS.

*Yes, I am well aware of the complications of VA's contract with Amtrak here in terms of revenue allocation and I'm not sure how a similar arrangement would have looked either pre-Amtrak or in the early years of Amtrak versus what VA worked out.
**I'm also aware that there's some oddness in questions of what ticket revenue is on some of the routes versus total revenue and whether there's a state subsidy buried in any of the trains' numbers.

 

[crescent-zephyr]

Ok, I've got to disagree on the lack of a case existing for all of the other corridors. The Lynchburger, in particular, has often shown a very strong profit margin and I strongly suspect that were we in 1974 instead of 2019 NS would be looking to acquire equipment to expand service. Note that the numbers for that train are such that it probably covers the cost of equipment acquisition.*

The other VA services are in a similar boat to varying degrees (though the question of the Richmond/Newport News/Norfolk trains is inherently rather tangled at the moment owing to the mid-year schedule shuffle), but taken as a bundle you have operating costs of $51.8m and operating revenue of $64.2m (and thus an operating ratio in the ballpark of 80%)**. That is probably enough to cover equipment orders; the question of track improvements is trickier, but at the same time that question is muddled by a tangle of questions involving the mixed use of any improvements (freight, commuter, and intercity trains all arguably getting benefits) and the question of what improvements would be merited versus what is being demanded by the host(s).

For the record, I do also believe that on the numbers available, the Norfolk extension is probably creeping up on a point where it justifies its full costs. The margins on equipment costs for the three affected routes (Richmond, Newport News, and Norfolk) probably aren't quite there (at current margins, the operating profit would probably be sitting somewhere over $200m over 25 years...definitely enough to cover probable equipment needs, but we could go back and forth as to just what those needs are versus what share should "belong" to Amtrak for the portion of service north of Washington) but it seems like they're pretty close since I think the cost of the Norfolk extension was in the $100m ballpark per the agreement of NS.

*Yes, I am well aware of the complications of VA's contract with Amtrak here in terms of revenue allocation and I'm not sure how a similar arrangement would have looked either pre-Amtrak or in the early years of Amtrak versus what VA worked out.
**I'm also aware that there's some oddness in questions of what ticket revenue is on some of the routes versus total revenue and whether there's a state subsidy buried in any of the trains' numbers.

I had forgotten about the Lynchburg train. Good point.