lol, that is what the headline says.[:D] Seriously though it is carrying 600 passengers a day.
Headline:
Another news source:
https://www.allaboardmn.org/about/new-2nd-train-to-chicago-borealis/
The first article is behind a pay wall.
The second article mentions the travel time is 7 hours 30 minutes, 30 minutes faster than the Empire Builder. Which brings to mind the CNW service between Chicago and the Twin Cities was nameed the 400 for the 400 minutes that was its scheduled run - 6 hours 40 minutes. I believe CNW was the slowest of the three competing services on the run compared to the CB&Q and MILW.
I didn’t read the article behind the paywall. Did the new train get riders from the Empire Builder. That would be a good thing if it removes the shorts, and makes more space for the cross country passengers.
Just to clarify, it is carrying about 300 passengers in each direction. Also there were speeds over 90 or even over 100 mph in the days of the 400, Zephyrs and Hiawathas of old.
Heading to La Crosse in a couple weeks. Hoping to see two Borealis 20 minutes apart at Tomah. If they’re on time.
Do not let the number of passengers on the EB fool our posters. If the Borealis takes away from the EB shorts that may just mean that EB average travel length will increase. So RPMs may increase for EB while number of passengers stays same or a very slight reduction. Much the same happened on the Crescent when the first VA service from LYH to WASH was instituted.
Which is even more of a indictment of today’s services.
Speeds of 90-100 in the 30’s & 40’s and not in the 21st Century.
Where is the ‘progress’?
I think we also have to admit that people have changed and are not necessarily as dilligent as they were back then so whatever margin of safety they had back then would be less now (if safety technology was kept at the same level since then)…just my opinion.
In other modes of transportation with far more convenience, comfort, and utility becoming developed, promoted, and accepted, even as the terrifying manpower requirements to keep what Juniatha called ‘nailed’ track in shape for those speeds started to balloon postwar. Even then, icing on the cake was the ICC order reimposing ATC/ATS for speeds above 79mph.
When there was free money to achieve high speed (as when the Johnson Administration threw funding at ‘high-speed ground transportation’) you got the promise of remarkably quick trains in a hurry (see the Sikorsky/UA ‘computer-assisted’ proposal for TurboTrain service on part of the Water Level Route in 1967, something that might have succeeded where all those ‘lightweight trains of the future’ were a defective answer to a question nobody was asking) and of course the whole Necroliner thing.
The short answer is of course Amtrak.
We got, rather quietly and perhaps under the radar, in the late 1980s to trains being routinely operated well over 130mph in some cases (with AEM7s). Of course by then the French were routinely designing for 186 sustained mph on track we couldn’t build here – and equipment that didn’t pass “Federal” buff and draft. Our (more correctly, our northern neighbor’s) ‘answer’ to TGV, Acela, was a bit like Porky Pig on Pervitin, hundreds of instantaneous g in the running gear on that wretched excuse for a Northeast “Corroder” that MN runs and, kinda-sorta, 150mph for a few miles per trip.
On the other hand, if you want to see 114-118mph on a commuter train, fly into BWI and take the shuttle to the Penn Line. For the most fun, get something pushed by a HHP-8; it is not quite
Which is actually more riders than on some of the Chicago to Milwaukee trains. Also it just started and has no marketing yet, just word of mouth and media reports. I think they are going to add another frequency if the ridership grows a little. They have CPKC permission for a second RT, just need to get funding.
Unfortunately, Amtrak collects stats for the Empire Builder and WisDOT has no insight into that train until Amtrak publishes those stats. Though I would venture to guess the rider cannibalization is not really significant and both trains compliment each other. London School of Economics studies point out that the more train RT frequencies added the larger is the overall population that considers the train because the departures and arrivals are more convienent. So adding a second RT when the EB operates on time might add to the EB ridership. Adding a second RT frequency to the Twin Cities…even more so. For this to happen the EB has to maintain a reliable schedule. Otherwise the locals will gravitate to the more reliable frequency.
According to Amtrak’s May 2024 Monthly Performance Report, YTD May, under State Supported Trains, St. Paul to Chicago, the unnamed service had operating revenues of approximately $600,000, operating expenses of approximately $500,000, resulting in Adjusted Operating Earnings of approximately $100,000.
The May report does not show Frequency Variable Costs, Route Variable Costs and System Fixed Costs. At the end of FY24, assuming Amtrak keeps to its latest cost accounting reporting, inclusion of these costs is likely to change the numbers significantly.
In FY23 only two State Supported services had an Adjusted Operating Profit: St. Louis to Kansas City and Adirondack.
The Borealis had 22 frequencies in May 2024. It carried 6,600 riders or an average of 300 per train.
Beware of even numbers. Those in the May Monthly Performance Report appear to be estimates; they probably will be adjusted at the end of the fiscal year.
In the long distance markets for Amtrak - a single schedule per day between the O-D pairs does not really constitute ‘service’. In transportation, to my mind’ SERVICE offers users choices. With a single schedule, the only choice is between YES or NO. The schedule time fits the customers ‘personal schedule’ or it doesn’t.
Long Distance ‘service’ should consist of at a minimum TWO schedules with nominal 12 hour separation over their O-D run. Locales served in the middle of the night by one schedule would be served in the middle of the day by the other schedule. I feature that there are a number of potential customers that consider Amtrak an automatic NO because at their ‘personal O-D pairs’ are served at totally inconvient hours. Back in the days of RAILROAD passenger service, Great Northern operated both the Emprire Builder and Western Star on differing schedule. Northern Pacific did the same with the North Coast Limited and the Mainstreeter.
While the airlines can consider most of the USA - Flyover territory, railroads can’t; they have to build their business with customers the airlines don’t want.
The ridership figures are from the Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers website: https://wisarp.wordpress.com/
The June ridership figures have already been posted.
The website indicates that 38.5% of the passengers on Borealis were between Chicago and Milwaukee inclusive. Remember, Borealis is basically an extension of a Hiawatha service train in that before and after the inauguration of Borealis, there were seven trains daily each way between Chicago and Milwaukee.
Therefore, “new” ridership for the train is only 61.5% of what is indicated.
This is how the Milwaukee Road handled Chicago to Twin Cities near the end. Morning Hiawatha and Afternoon Hiawatha (two RT’s). In my view the current track alignment Chicago to Twin Cities via Milwaukee via CPKC offers the best and fastest route for reviving ridership between these cities. I don’t think a dip in the route to Madison would add as much as it would detract. Even with a new right of way that dip in the route would take time to traverse.
Milwaukee had a decent arrangement with the junction at New Lisbon and serving Wausau, WI from the Twin Cities main. I think they should do similar with Madison. My thoughts though is the state will eventually cave to pressure and screw it up and try to dip the route to include Madison at some point.
I think Chicago to Madison over METRA in part makes more sense for less than 100 mph service. Far more ridership there then attempting to change Chicago to Twin Cities and far more bang for the taxpayer buck. It’s a route that is not even under consideration though. Milwaukee Road did pretty well with Chicago to Madison via Fox Lake…even towards the end.
Not sure if there is a decent ROW to upgrade.
Beats me on the right of way condition but Iowa Pacific ran a passenger special with pretty decent timetable over that route not too long ago…three to 3.5 hours I think but not sure. Some upgrading needed no doubt.
Video was posted nine years ago. The narrator said it was four hours to Madison and after Fox Lake on Metra 79moh track, it shifted to Wisconsin Southern track to Madison at 30-35 mph, which might or might not have been upgraded.
It’s one thing to run an excursion special on Metra on weekends. It would be harder to integrate multiple fast trains a day on weekdays.
It makes more sense to link the two largest Wisconsin cities, capital of UW Madison and MKE directly with each other than run a train from Madison to Chicago with only minor cities in between.
Just put a station stop at Hwy 16 at Pewaukee, and drop the Madison idea. It would take tens of millions to offer Madison decent service.
Agree and Madison is just a “me too” after thought as far as rail anything is concerned between the Twin Cities.
Madison saw and heard the band wagon go by and now they want to jump on board with the smell of Federal money being spent. Prior to any proposal…no real interest in Madison for intercity rail. I think if anything run a short connector train between Madison and Portage or even better run a Chicago to Madison to Portage train with connection to Westbound to Twin Cities.
Milwaukee to Madison only works via the cutoff at Watertown via Sun Prarie which would probably be more expensive to fix then North of Fox Lake. Lets say we get speeds on that to 79 mph. Madison to Milwaukee is about the distance between Milwaukee and Chicago. Look how many train frequencies Milwaukee to Chicago took to approach break even and Chicago is a lot bigger than Madison. I think this is why Milwaukee Road and C&NW exited the Milwaukee to Madison passenger routing as fast as they could. Further the Madison trains would eat up vital capacity from Watertown to Milwaukee that would be better if applied to Twin Cities trains. Watertown to Madison looks like it was engineered for high speed passenger service but then…it never really sustained it. I am sure there is a reason there.