Train to Winnipeg

[norfolkwesternhenry]

How would a CHI/MSP to WPG (Winnipeg) do? It could be an overnight train probably with the current equipment crunch, a MSP-WPG train could use a potential:

P42/40 (GFK-WPG)- transition sleeper-viewliner sleeper- diner lite- coach- coach (horizon/amfleet), catching a ride on the EB GFK-MSP, or if there is equipment for a third set, all the way to CHI. How would this work? I figure two sets of equipment MSP-WPG, and three if the cars ran WPG-CHI, would the best plan be like the Cascades? run non-stop to WPG, then have customs there? Via should have servicing for its Hudson bay train, and Grand Forks mist likely has a wye to turn the engines, as well as a fuel truck can probably fill the tank on the P42. What would the travel time be GFK-WPG? Would the combined consist need three engines? What would the possibility of two viewliner diners and Amfleet cafe cars being available?

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I made up WPG as a three letter abbreviation for Winnipeg, as of this post, there is no WPG in the current Antrak system

 

[WICT106]

All Aboard MN has some info here: http://www.allaboardmn.org/ As for the time, I would estimate something on the order of 2 to 3 hours GFK - Winnipeg. The Museum of Railway Timetables lists the bus time at approximately 3 hrs 25 mins GFK -- Winnipeg. http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19900401b&item=0056 I cannot decide if it would be more successful as a section of the Empire Builder, or as a stand-alone train CHI - Winnipeg. I think it would be better to have a separate train, running CHI - GFK via the existing route, then going GFK -- Winnipeg. I think it would be a 16 or 17 hour run between CHI and Winnipeg, but I would also have a minimum of 2 departures daily, spaced 8 to 12 hours apart. I would also make an effort to focus on service at the intermediate stops, making for practical service over the entire route and not just the end points. With that in mind, it might be more economical to make this a coach- only train, like the Palmetto, with café / bistro service, and not have the associated costs of sleeping cars and a full-service diner. Amtrak will have to work at punctuality over this route, also.

Two departures each-direction-every-day enables each stop along the route to have **daytime service** at some time during each day. Once-per-day-each-way trains, such as the current Empire Builder, mean that some stops have service in the middle of the night. It has been my experience that Midwesterners whose only train service is late at night, or before dawn, see little to no value in such service. Any additional or new service must be during the daytime !

As for Customs, I think I would have Customs at Winnipeg, with the next US stop on the route being Grand Forks. That way, one can avoid the circus that plagued the International at Port Huron, MI. The other option would be to stop each train at Noyes, have everyone get off, and go through Customs -- however, this would be very time consuming, and give the US Customs the opportunity to drag out inspections, and generally act officious and "badge-heavy."

The airport IATA code for Winnipeg is YWG (ICAO: CYWG), but I think for our purposes we may abbreviate Winnipeg as WPG.

There is also the possibility that this will have to be a 403 (b) State- supported train, getting support from MN. We will have to wait until Scott Walker and certain WI State legislators are voted out of office before getting any support from WI ( Walker and suburban Milwaukee legislators damaged any efforts to expand or improve train service through WI for the near term. Milwaukee area talk radio hosts have done their share of damage, too ).

We also must keep in mind that regional bus service has been tried a couple of times over the past 2 decades, only to be discontinued. The flights MSP - YWG are made by smaller jets. This seems to suggest that the markets are smaller. How are the finances and economics going to work for a train, where they cannot for bus service, and barely work for air travel ?

I want to see this happen, but I think the State of MN will have to take the lead. Many in WI, having no experience using trains on a regular basis, have absorbed the anti-rail mantra that "no one is going to ride it."

 

[neroden]

This would do OK, but not great. The lead would have to be taken by Manitoba, which would have to set up the border control station, renovate the tracks on the Canadian side, and get agreement from the Canadian and US governments. I'm sure Minnesota would be cooperative, but Manitoba would have to do most of the work. At the moment it does not seem to care.

 

[Anderson]

(1) The economics are always a bit different for trains, it seems, than for buses...I'm trying to think of cases outside of CA where the state sponsors a bona fide long-haul bus system, not to mention plenty of folks for whom taking the bus is not their idea of a great part of a vacation. Also, on the airline side...part of the problem is the sheer expense of some Canadian airports.

(1a) The trip is short enough that a Cardinal/Star-esque food service option with a single FSC should be able to cut it. You'd need something more than a baseline cafe, but I don't think this train would absolutely need a diner.

(2) Depending on the schedule, the bread-and-butter of such a service would probably be CHI-MSP. In particular, I could see a situation where (space permitting) a car would run CHI-MSP on the Builder but return on such a train (since, presuming a WPG customs arrangement, this train would likely be less subject to delays than the Builder).

(3) Also depending on the schedule, I do suspect you'd get some through traffic to/from the Canadian on its days. If you ran the overnight time on the northern end, you could manage a same-day connection to the Canadian (connecting from it is another story), which I suspect would generate at least some traffic in-season. If you run the overnight part CHI-MSP (a perfectly valid market, I suspect) you'd force next-day connections...but the Canadian is likely to force those one way regardless.

Basically, I think it could work. You'd need a substantial subsidy from Minnesota, but as both a CHI-MSP train and an MSP-GFK train there's probably a market which could be carved out from the Builder due to occasionally catastrophic reliability issues with the latter.

 

[railbuck]

I think it would be a 16 or 17 hour run between CHI and Winnipeg, but I would also have a minimum of 2 departures daily, spaced 8 to 12 hours apart. I would also make an effort to focus on service at the intermediate stops, making for practical service over the entire route and not just the end points. With that in mind, it might be more economical to make this a coach- only train, like the Palmetto, with café / bistro service, and not have the associated costs of sleeping cars and a full-service diner.

16-17 hours seems quite optimistic, since CHI-GFK is currently about 15 hours, which incidentally is about what the Palmetto is. If we look at just CHI-GFK, a schedule 8 hours earlier than the WB EB and 8 hours later than the EB EB would just about match the Palmetto's schedule as well. It would take two sets of equipment, which will be somewhat less difficult to scrounge up if diners and sleepers are not involved.

A second CHI-MSP train is on just about everyone's wish list. However, the distance is just great enough that it really can't be done with one set of equipment without getting into the overnight hours. So strictly from an equipment utilization point of view, if it takes two sets anyway, might as well extend the train to Fargo or GFK or Winnipeg instead of having it sit around in MSP.

However, going all the way to Winnipeg would mean a very early departure and very late arrival in both directions. Between that, the border control considerations, and unknown track conditions, it would probably be more practical to have the last leg be a Thruway connection, at least initially.

 

[WICT106]

I think it would be a 16 or 17 hour run between CHI and Winnipeg, but I would also have a minimum of 2 departures daily, spaced 8 to 12 hours apart. I would also make an effort to focus on service at the intermediate stops, making for practical service over the entire route and not just the end points. With that in mind, it might be more economical to make this a coach- only train, like the Palmetto, with café / bistro service, and not have the associated costs of sleeping cars and a full-service diner.

16-17 hours seems quite optimistic, since CHI-GFK is currently about 15 hours, which incidentally is about what the Palmetto is. If we look at just CHI-GFK, a schedule 8 hours earlier than the WB EB and 8 hours later than the EB EB would just about match the Palmetto's schedule as well. It would take two sets of equipment, which will be somewhat less difficult to scrounge up if diners and sleepers are not involved.

A second CHI-MSP train is on just about everyone's wish list. However, the distance is just great enough that it really can't be done with one set of equipment without getting into the overnight hours. So strictly from an equipment utilization point of view, if it takes two sets anyway, might as well extend the train to Fargo or GFK or Winnipeg instead of having it sit around in MSP.

However, going all the way to Winnipeg would mean a very early departure and very late arrival in both directions. Between that, the border control considerations, and unknown track conditions, it would probably be more practical to have the last leg be a Thruway connection, at least initially.

1. The more I think about it, an 18 hour schedule seems more realistic.

2. There should be two frequencies per day each way, so that there can be daytime service all along the route.

3. AU member George Harris is best qualified to discuss the condition of the track from Winnipeg south to the Twin Cities.

 

[railiner]

I wonder how much traffic the Empire Builder gets from Winnipeggers driving down to Grand Forks?

 

[Palmetto]

I would guess not too many, given the awful times at Grand Forks.

 

[neroden]

I'm just going to say that my experiences with Minnesota (where I lived for several years) tell me that, on the whole, they *do not care* about going to Manitoba or Winnipeg. This is why I say any such train would have to be backed by Manitoba. Minnesota will be happy to back CHI-MSP and MSP-Duluth and sevral other routes.

I don't know about North Dakota, they might have more connection to Manitoba.

 

[Eric S]

Years ago I had a roommate from Fargo and as I recall it sounded like there is some degree of connection from Fargo (and presumably Grand Forks) to Winnipeg, but less than from Fargo to the Twin Cities.

IINM, the Empire Builder PIP suggested a Grand Forks-Winnipeg Thruway bus connection and last time I looked at train schedules and potential bus travel times it looked like it might be possible to connect both to/from the Empire Builder to the east and to/from the Canadian to the west (enabling, for example, St. Paul-Edmonton travel).

As for rail service, to me it seems like a service that would be *way* down the list of priorities for the region - but once there is more service between Grand Forks/Fargo and St. Paul, some sort of rail link to Winnipeg would seem worthwhile to look into. But state/provincial and/or local priorities would probably dictate how this would occur.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

I think it would be a 16 or 17 hour run between CHI and Winnipeg, but I would also have a minimum of 2 departures daily, spaced 8 to 12 hours apart. I would also make an effort to focus on service at the intermediate stops, making for practical service over the entire route and not just the end points. With that in mind, it might be more economical to make this a coach- only train, like the Palmetto, with café / bistro service, and not have the associated costs of sleeping cars and a full-service diner.

16-17 hours seems quite optimistic, since CHI-GFK is currently about 15 hours, which incidentally is about what the Palmetto is. If we look at just CHI-GFK, a schedule 8 hours earlier than the WB EB and 8 hours later than the EB EB would just about match the Palmetto's schedule as well. It would take two sets of equipment, which will be somewhat less difficult to scrounge up if diners and sleepers are not involved.

A second CHI-MSP train is on just about everyone's wish list. However, the distance is just great enough that it really can't be done with one set of equipment without getting into the overnight hours. So strictly from an equipment utilization point of view, if it takes two sets anyway, might as well extend the train to Fargo or GFK or Winnipeg instead of having it sit around in MSP.

However, going all the way to Winnipeg would mean a very early departure and very late arrival in both directions. Between that, the border control considerations, and unknown track conditions, it would probably be more practical to have the last leg be a Thruway connection, at least initially.

Unless CHI-WPG can be done with 2 sets, I would prefer a CHI-MSP train to continue to Duluth. In a few years there will be a MSP-Duluth route but due to the EB schedule it is unlikely a same day connection could be made CHI-Duluth without another frequency CHI-MSP.

 

[WICT106]

For the edification of those on this thread : The 2015 draft MN State rail plan, section 3 "Proposed Passenger Rail Improvements" :http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/railplan/2015report/3.pdf It lists service to Winnipeg as part of a second series.

 

[jamesontheroad]

I think it's very unlikely, but the thread raises some interesting possibilities.

Firstly, a possible flow between Chicago and the Canadian at Winnipeg. The Northern Ontario portion of the Canadian is awful repetitive (lake / forest / lake / forest) so it might attract people in the mid-west looking to see the Canadian Rockies.

Secondly, provided the Hudson Bay Railway isn't negatively affected by the close of the Port of Churchill, there could be a convenient connection in Winnipeg to the Winnipeg - Churchill train. Marginal maybe, but imagine one connection from Chicago to see the polar bears in Churchill?

Thirdly, the international portion would only form part of the business case. Northern MN is sparsely populated, but has some reasonably sized towns and some with large college populations. Chicago is definitely the next big city on people's radar after the Twin Cities, and direct rail service could generate more traffic than is currently attracted to bus and air.

I'm just going to say that my experiences with Minnesota (where I lived for several years) tell me that, on the whole, they *do not care* about going to Manitoba or Winnipeg. This is why I say any such train would have to be backed by Manitoba. Minnesota will be happy to back CHI-MSP and MSP-Duluth and sevral other routes.

Depends how far north you go. My wife is from Bemidji, MN, which is about half way between the Twin Cities and Winnipeg. For those blessed three years between the age of 18 and 21, there were of course many reasons to go north, but don't forget the Winnipeg Folk Festival and Fringe Festival for seasonal highlights.

Given how expensive long distance air travel is from most smaller Canadian cities, with a domestic duopoly and airports like YWG generally only getting expensive puddler jumper regional jet connections to US hubs, there is the possibility that Amtrak could draw Canadians south more readily than Greyhound or the airlines.

 

[Eric S]

For the edification of those on this thread : The 2015 draft MN State rail plan, section 3 "Proposed Passenger Rail Improvements" :http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/railplan/2015report/3.pdf It lists service to Winnipeg as part of a second series.

Thanks for that link. It had been a while since I had looked over the MN rail plan.

That plan breaks the first series into Phase I Projects in Advanced Planning and other Phase I Projects with Winnipeg falling into Phase II, as you mention. That grouping seems reasonable to me.

Get Phase Ia up and running:

- MSP-MKE-CHI

- MSP-Duluth

- MSP-Rochester

Move onto Phase Ib:

- MSP-Des Moines

- MSP-Eau Claire

- MSP-Fargo

- MSP-Mankato

Then look at Phase II:

- (MSP) Fargo-Grand Forks-Winnipeg

- (MSP) Mankato-Sioux City

- MSP-Sioux Falls

 

[neroden]

It's a good ordering. If Wisconsin hadn't been taken over by that crook Scott Walker and his dishonest big-money backers, we'd have CHI-MKE-Madison running already and MSP-Madison-MKE would have followed quickly.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

Lets get a Chicago-Toronto train back first (and a few more than one a day trains to MSP) before serving Winnipeg - not that I don't think it's a good idea.

(I think Justin is going to be pretty busy with the corridor upgrade right now anyways)

 

[Seaboard92]

How many miles is the route and how many miles of it don't have passenger service now? I think a long day train would actually work. Think about it for a second you get a train leaving in the morning(too bad for eastern connections) from Chicago headed to MSP. Supplementing the Hiawatha route and the Empire Builder. Both of which would see ridership gains from the service as everyone points out. Secondly having the day train also makes it cheaper to run without a diner. Of course there is another option for equipment I'm surprised you guys haven't come up with. What about VIA Budd cars on the service or at least maybe one consist provided by Amtrak and the other provided by VIA. I personally think this service could be a winner. I wonder how much time would be eaten out of the Builders timetable if it was routed via Madison on the way. Then we have accomplished killing four birds (second CHI-MSP, CHI-Madison, Madison-MSP, and MSP-WPG) with one stone. This is one of the stronger ideas I've seen. As a day train however it wouldn't be able to connect at either end with any long distance trains which is a bummer. But anyone planning outbound transit from the Canadian knows plan a day between modes.

 

[Metra Electric Rider]

I thought that there were problems with running through trains in Madison as the tracks are currently laid out?

Honestly, I'd rather have the new bi-levels or something like the Brightline will be using for new service, especially internationally.

Historically two comments (which I'm probably wrong about); the only hourly service from Chicago (from one company) was to Madison, and the other, the routes between Chicago and Minneapolis were some of the fastest in their day worldwide - it's a long enough distance we should be shooting for high average speeds to get the time down to something reasonable that will attract even passengers than just adding a frequency will.

 

[norfolkwesternhenry]

I'm just going to say that my experiences with Minnesota (where I lived for several years) tell me that, on the whole, they *do not care* about going to Manitoba or Winnipeg. This is why I say any such train would have to be backed by Manitoba. Minnesota will be happy to back CHI-MSP and MSP-Duluth and sevral other routes.

I don't know about North Dakota, they might have more connection to Manitoba.

the only reason for me to ride this train, apart from I live in MSP, would be to connect with the Via Canadian, and get the heck out of WPG, seemingly a ghost town compared to MPLS/ ST Paul

 

[Seaboard92]

You are quite right Metra Electric the trains that formally ran on the CHI-MSP route were very fast. The CNW, Burlington, and Milwaukee Road(current route) all had trains averaging over 60 mph. The fastest run time was by the Milwaukee Road at six hours forty five minutes.

 

[fairviewroad]

the only reason for me to ride this train, apart from I live in MSP, would be to connect with the Via Canadian, and get the heck out of WPG, seemingly a ghost town compared to MPLS/ ST Paul

A "ghost town" that is one of the fastest growing cities in Canada, by the way. With an airport that's broken its own record for passengers each of the past two years. A city whose culinary scene is drawing national attention. A city that laughs at winter and builds the world's longest ice skating trail in the heart of the city each year.

I could go on, but feel free to hang onto your uninformed, condescending view of your neighbor to the north.

 

[neroden]

You give me hope that the growing metropolis of Winnipeg might desire train service to the US. I still think any such train would have to be pushed by Manitoba, but if Winnipeg decides they want it... I bet they can make it happen.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Ditto on faiviewroads post on Winterpeg! ( Canadians like to say downtown Winnipeg is the Coldest place in Canada in the Winter!)

Other cities in Canada that might surprise you are Calgary and Edmonton,Alberta, both rapidly growing,prosperous outposts in the Big Nowhere that is the Canadian West!

 

[fairviewroad]

You give me hope that the growing metropolis of Winnipeg might desire train service to the US. I still think any such train would have to be pushed by Manitoba, but if Winnipeg decides they want it... I bet they can make it happen.

Perhaps, though despite my high opinion of Winnipeg, I don't see this as even being on their radar. They are much more focused on developing air service out of Winnipeg and stopping the bleed of vacation travelers who use the GFK, FAR and even MSP airports.

I have personally used the EB via GFK to travel to Winnipeg, and have many relatives who have come in my direction using the same thing (including two I booked next month using my AGR B1G1 coupon). But, the horrible calling times at GFK combined with the dumpy, agent-free station in GFK, make it a difficult selling point.

I suspect if the EB were a more attractive option currently, then more people from Winnipeg would be interested in the train, making rail service between Winnipeg and Chicago more likely in the future. As it is, even if a Thruway bus service were established, you'd still be asking people to start and end their vacations in the middle of the night. Obviously a standalone route could potentially address that problem, but there just isn't a demonstrated level of demand at this point. People there see passenger rail service as a novelty or something that First Nation communities need. It's not for John/Jane Maple and their kids.