Empire Builder moved to a more southerly route?

Trains Magazine General Discussion
61

Well, I am firmly of the belief that passenger rail advocates are not up to speed on current railroad minutia. Here’s a couple of quotes from Jim Green, president of the Montana/Wyoming Association of Rail Passengers (from the Missoulian online):

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2007/04/14/bnews/br41.prt

Quote #1

"But the idea of running passenger trains between Billings and Chicago gave Green reason for pause. ‘They have about 65 coal trains going through there every day,’ Green told a gathering of 30 people. ‘There aren’t enough tracks for passenger trains to go through efficiently.’ "

Hmmmmm…

Either he’s including the possibility of running this new train from Billings to Chicago via Gillette and Alliance, or he’s overestimating the number of coal trains using the ex-NP and ex-Milwaukee lines through the Dakotas.

Quote #2

“Some issues need to be resolved, Green said. For example, train tracks between Missoula and Spokane feature at least 22 curves that are considered too sharp for passenger trains.”

What in the blazes is he talking about? BNSF runs autoracks and Boeing plane bodies through this line all the time. Is he refering to Evaro Hill? Is he harking back to the days of reverberations through Lookout Pass and St. Paul Pass?

62

He probably means there are 22 curves that passenger trains can’t handle at high speed (79 mph ?).

63

If that’s what he meant, I think I have to say “Boo-hoo!”. Since when did ANY route in the west NOT have a fair number of slower than 79MPH curves? Is he wanting a new NEC going through the mountains or something?

64

The NP route between Butte and Sandpoint is SLOW for a passenger train. A lot of 25 - 35 MPH track (curve limit). Mr. Green mentioned “22 curves”, so perhaps he was referring to these curve-limit speed restrictions?

He probably means there are 22 curves that passenger trains can’t handle at high speed (79 mph ?).

65

The baggage car is in Linton, OR, on the P&W - very very well “tagged”.

66

In a past Post on this subject, I mentioned —

"Spokane simply is not being served with the present system. Neither, for that matter, is Billings. An overnight Billings-Portland train swaping cars at Spokane with the Builder would probably run full."

and Dave (futuremodel) mentioned —

"Keep in mind though, if Michael’s observations hold true regarding the fact that most of the Montana boardings of the current EB are coming up from the I-90 cities, then even a minimal parallel train from Billings to Missoula and Spokane will have a significant negative effect on the High Line EB. I think my perceptions hold true - that Montana cannot host two parallel trains, ergo either one or the other must go."

Dave – it is entirely possible to to have your cake and eat it, too. The fly in this ointment is #1 Where is the equipment going to come from and #2 Who is going to pay for this?

#2’s answer is, at least, Washington, possibly Oregon, and Montana. Perhaps, if the States can convince BNSF to cooperate, “sell” overnight ground express space to UPS, FedEx, and DANSAS, among others, for service to and from Missoula.

#1’s answer is get some of those wreck damaged cars fixed. Some of the equipment could come off of the current Builder.

Equipment needed in addition to what is now in use - 6 coaches, 6 sleepers and a diner. If the express option can be included, at least 4 baggage cars (NOT those Materials Handling Cars the rest of us would call box cars - you’ll need at least one TBM to work the cars since they would need to operate like checked baggage is now).

“New Service” needed - extend #'s 27 and 28 byond Spokane to Missoula.

3 of the coaches and 3 of the sleepers would park for occupancy at Spokane. 1 each coach and sleeper would go to Seattle, one set to Portland, and one set to Chicago. The other 3 sets

67

Kenneo,

Here’s the rub: If the EB is rerouted onto the Stampede Pass line like BNSF wants to do, then several things happen that change the entire route structure of the EB with or without that southern Montana reroute/new service…

  1. Assuming a continuation of the Portland split, a Stampede Pass reroute would move the site of the split to Pasco.
  2. Since the Stampede Pass reroute would add 3 or 4 hours to the shedule, for the EB to continue to arrive at Seattle at 7-ish am but continue to leave Seattle at dinertime means it would pass through Spokane at 8 or 9 at night. Now we’re talking potentially increased (read: more convenient) boardings at Spokane.
  3. Which also means the arrivals at Whitefish move to the early afternoon. Does that then detract from the “overnight” experience for Seattle bound passengers"
  4. Thus if we get a new train from Spokane to Missoula/Billings/on east, does that mean it would be scheduled to meet the EB in Spokane, or will it be scheduled for the primary convenience of the Montana clients?
68

Montana won’t stand still for the Builder to leave the High Line. I can understand why the BN wants to move the Builder to the NP, but I also believe that it would be a service disaster and would endanger the Empire Builder’s Seattle traffic.

#1 Which is where the NP took its pool cars from the SPS. The GN cars went to Spokane.

#2 Any schedule change would be West of Spokane. Altering the Builders time slot East of Spokane would require altering all of the freight traffice slots on the Builders route on all of the railroads involved. What a nightmare! It would be better to originate a Spokane-Seattle overnight train about 9 PM or so $$$$$$$$$$$$$$. Require some really sharp marketing and service need studies and promotions - bur would eliminate any need for parking Seattle cars for occupancy

69

Empire Builder should stay on the Same Route and if Amtrak wants a New Train put it on on different route.

70

I have enjoyed reading this thread. I picked this up from AP
Mont. Senate rejects funding for passenger train study

(The Associated Press circulated the following story on April 15.)

GREAT FALLS, Mont. - A study on the feasibility of restoring passenger train service in southern Montana is in jeopardy, after the Senate rejected several funding attempts Friday.

Money for the study wasn’t included in the state budget, and senators voted against two amendments to set aside $100,000 and $150,000 for it.

71

That does seem to be the media consensus…

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070412/OPINION01/704120304/1014/OPINION

Well, then push will eventually come to shove, because I just can’t see Montana being willing to support two trains…

http://www.billingsgazette.net/articles/2007/04/14/news/state/53-train.txt

72

It might be time to think about restoring the North Coast Hiawatha. It could be operated Portland to Chicago using the old North Coast Limited route. The Empire Builder would operate only from Seattle. This would mean better service for Spokane, southern Montana, Bismarck, Fargo and Minneapolis-St Paul. Amtrak Cascades could provide connections to each train from Portand or Seattle. The Mainstreeter schedule of 1964 might be a good one to use for this new route.

73

The tracks from Glendive up to Williston are still in place, but are now owned by a private raiload, not BNSF. Not to mention, most of the rail was, at least the last time I saw it, 80, 85, 90, and 100 # jointed rail with a 25mph speed limit on it.

First and foremost, the Empire Builder will not come off the Hi-Line. Won’t happen. However, the Builder would most likely not be affected by a train on the ex-NP. And has anyone considered the overnight possibilities for Billings to the Twin Cities as well as Billings to Spokane? Here’s a suggestion that could work for a train on the southern route that would have connections with the Builder at Spokane.

Let’s call this train The North Coast Limited, reviving the old NP name. This train would depart Chicago some three hours ahead of the Empire Builder, not on the CP, but BNSF toward Savanna, IL. It would follow the river up to La Crosse, WI stopping at Dubuque, IL and Praire du Chien, WI. At La Crosse, it would switch to the CP for the run to St Paul. This would pick up Winona and Red Wing (both Builder stops but at an earlier time).

The train would continue to follow the Builder route (on BNSF) until Fargo where it would set out across ND toward Bismarck. The Empire Builder is some three hours behind the NCL making its run from Minneapolis to Fargo. When the NCL crosses into Montana and stops at Glendive, the Builder is in Minot. When the NCL reaches Billings (now on MRL), the Builder is in Malta, MT (east of Havre). The NCL reaches Missoula, the Builder will be desending the west side Marias Pass. And when the NCL reaches Sandpoint Jct., the Builder will be about 20 to 30 minutes behind it at Bonners Ferry, ID. The two trains would swap Seattle and Portland bound cars at Spokane, with the NCL continuing on to Portland via the old SP&S and the Builder to Seattle via Stevens Pass, not Stampede.

Stamp

74

Scott

Welcome to the Forums!

Your suggestion about using the Mainstreeter schedule is quite close to what I suggested several posts above, but I postulated turning South at the Twin Cities to St. Louis instead of continuing on to Chicago. Missoula-Portland already supports jet service on Horizon Air (Alaska Air Group), so there is a market. And there are several Spokane-Portland flights each day.

Dave

They would keep the split at Spokane since that is already a crew change point. Pasco split would permit the Portland crew to do a double-back, therefor using only one crew. Spokane splits require three crews for even one run as it is now. Two runs would not require any additional crews between Portland and Spokane. I also am of the opinion that Portland-Missoula might be able to be operated by a single crew each direction plus the layover crew at Missoula - no new crews needed.

Operating from Chicago as suggested here and making a swap at Spokane (shades of the NP-GN days!!) works as long as someone(s) is willing to pony up. Maintain two sets of cars parked for occupancy at Spokane (set out by the Eastbounds and to be picked up by the Westbounds).

A restoration of Denver service (with or without an extension to St. Louis and/or Houston) is a good suggestion, but I don’t think the traffic is there to support the service North of Cheyenne and without a viable service to connect to at its North end, I can’t see any service on this route.

75

On Edit: After reading all the posts regrading have train service on the old NP line I’ve decided to remove my post. It looks like there aren’t enough vocal people wanting train service and the politicians don’t want to expend $$$ to do anything. Typical! [:D]

JMHO

76

They won’t move the Builder because it would be dumb. The Builder has the highest ridership of any long distance train in the country and most of that ridership is due to the Highline. We carry more passengers to Minot, ND and Whitefish, MT than from Chicago to Seattle. I know this because I am a conductor out of Saint Cloud, MN. The track is too slow on the southern route, there is too much traffic on the southern route and there is not enough equipment to start one right now. So until more equipment shows up and track speeds get raised, it is moot.

77

As was postulated earlier, most of the boardings along the High Line are probably coming from the I-90/I-94 corridor, e.g. the proposed southern line. If that holds true, then it would be dumb not to move the train closer to where the actual boarders reside. That is, unless we can finally admit that Amtrak is nothing but a glorified welfare program, wherein any resemblence of financial accountability is a moot point.

78

I love this idea.

79

Nonsense Dave. The Empire Builder should be left as is.

If Montana wants a second train, then they should pay for it. That is how Amtrak works now under W. I’ll take a guess that the State’s Senate is dominated by the GOP, never a freind to passenger trains.

80

Dale

Washington is rather big on passenger service (they own all but one or two of the Cascades sets and Oregon owns the others) so perhaps Washington (and maybe Oregon) could get together and purchase a diner, several coaches, and sleepers from the wreck-repair at Beach Grove, get (as in pay) AMTK to repair them or one of the reputable passenger car rebuild facilities. Convert the diner to a diner-club-lounge. The diner operates on #'s 27 and 28. Dinner and lounge East, Breakfast West. One set of coaches/sleepers goes to Seattle and one set to Portland. Park for occupancy at Spokane. “Rental” to the States, revenue to AMTK.

If the service is a bust, there are some cars ready to be sold back to AMTK, or leased back to them, since equipment are in such short supply.