Join the discussion on the following article:
Feasibility study for second Chicago-St. Paul frequency released
$95 MILLION just to add another frequency on an already established route? And that doesn’t include purchase of additional equipment? And then there needs to be an environmental review? What’s that about? It’s another train on an existing right of way! BNSF or CP or CN would NEVER be required to do an environmental review to add another freight train to the corridor. Come on people, this seems to be really saying “We REALLY don’t want to do this!”
I lived in the Waukesha area back in the 1970s and remember the North Coast Hiawatha Service that was the second train service they are studying restoring. What on earth has happened to us? We require an environmental study to restore a train that rain just 30+ years ago on the same tracks? And it now requires $95 million in rail investment to add it? What the hell!
Now living in Florida, this is exactly the reason that I can’t stand Amtrak and hope All Aboard Florida shows them how to actually run a real passenger rail service in this country. Amtrak has also gutted service here in the past 18 years that I’ve lived here. We do not need Amtrak. They need to go away. If Amtrak needs to spend a lot of tax money studying adding one train each way between 3 major cities, it has absolutely lost its way. Amtrak really has become NEC centric (Nothing Else Counts).
Yes, agreed. Was an environmental study necessary when other second in a day passenger trains were operated over the route such as last year’s Boardman train to the opening of the St Paul Union Depot? Come on guys. Just do it without all kinds of BS.
Maybe instead of running on the old Milwaukee Road run a train on the CB&Q i know there is not a lot of stops on thus line but it could serve communities along the line well. Like Rochelle IL people heading to the railroad park.
For all of you commenting on why they need to do an environmental study before adding a second train…it’s Federal law and part of the Amtrak operating authorization. So whether we think it’s a waste of money or not, they don’t have a choice, and All Aboard Florida had to do an Environmental study before they could even start construction as well as get STB approval.
I don’t think RRs have to accept new Amtrak frequencies, so ATK will have to pay for new sidings, their share of PTC, etc. Sidings have wider separation setbacks these days, so there will be new dirt work, thus new environmental assesments, which is done by FRA.
I’m sure one of the reasons the cost of operations are so high is that all the employees working 40+ hours a day (yes, I did mean to say day). In the end, it adds up!
Mr. McFarlane has replied to the question of environmental studies, so I’ll jump right to the scheduling issue. What happens when the second train of the day departs St. Paul earlier than the eastbound Empire Builder which often runs 4 or more hours late?
Ho, Ho, Ho! It’s Christmas in July as the past is studied for the future. Anyone with access to a Milw. Rd. timetable, say from the late 1940’s thru the 1950’s will see corridor service between Chi.-Milw-MSP. Some trains made almost no stops, some a few more, and some all. See what has been lost and costly to regain.
The EIS is needed because Amtrak will need to obtain Federal money to run the train, if only to buy the trainset. That’s it. They have no choice in the matter, that’s what the law says. It’s ridiculous, and I’m increasingly of the opinion that EISes, which really serve as choke points for NIMBY groups, should be - if not abolished altogether, then severely limited. At the very least, an EIS should be limited solely to new land acquisition, and should not evaluate the benefits of the service provided, only instead identifying possible issues and suggesting mitigating strategies.
@BRIAN THORNILEY - Amtrak doesn’t need AAF to show it how to run passenger trains, AAF is itself very obviously inspired by Amtrak’s Acela Express. What Amtrak needs is politicians to support its mission properly. AAF is also having to go through a largely unnecessary EIS process - almost the entire service runs through already developed property, with all but 30 miles being the relaying of track within its existing right of way. Most of that 30 miles is also going through an existing right of way’s (a nearby highway.) Despite that, to qualify for a loan or bonds not costing excessively more than the Feds can get for building roads to nowhere, they have to go through the same process Amtrak is going through.
Anyone wanting to run passenger trains right now still has to face a barrage of bureaucracy that seems designed to prevent anything from ever happening. There is no “Big Train” - no pro-passenger rail lobby - in this country to get politicians to undo a Century of poorly thought out legislation, but there’s plenty of Anti-Train groups. The three private passenger operators currently building out their networks or getting ready to - AAF, Iowa Pacific, and Texas Central - don’t appear, to me, to really understand that. We have to hope they learn quickly.
CHI-MSP is a little long for a bus ride, but the unreliability of the Builder makes it impractical as a corridor operation. I have reservations for Trains 75th anniversary banquet, but I can’t count on No. 8 to get me there on time, so I’m riding the Big Dog.
If we could only ride studies we’d have a great national network.
Wouldn’t the regional train to Lynchburg, VA be an appropriate model for this proposed new service? It uses the established route of the Crescent and has been quite popular. An extension to Roanoke is planned.
Those who decry the $95M and the EIS should bear in mind that when the North Coast Hiawatha ran, not to mention all the MILW passenger trains on that route beforehand the route was nearly 100% double track.
Some double track may need to be restored to ensure that doubling the number of capacity eating passenger trains don’t reduce freight capacity for the owner CP.
The bitter irony of course is that the federally funded capital grant turned down by the Scott Walker administration would have double tracked the segment between east Pewaukee and Watertown. Which is a fraction of the route now single-track CTC, but it’s something. And through a more populated area, thus a greater number of potential NIMBY challenges.
I would like to see this happen, but with a higher ridership to reduce the required subsidy. Here are some thoughts:
-
The Empire Builder is a relaxing, but SLOW ride. Invest in the capacity to speed it up. This could also reduce costs if one train set could make a same day turn at St. Paul, Minneapolis, or St. Cloud.
-
The Minneapolis & St. Cloud extensions would increase capital costs but greatly expand the population base, and probably ridership with minimal additional operating costs.
-
Instead of considering Chicago-Minneapolis and Minneapolis-Duluth separate corridors, why not combine them into a single corridor? Both routes would benefit from connecting ridership, and revenue.
-
This is a real long shot, but consider extending it to Winnipeg, at least on the days that a connection could be made with the Canadian. I realize this would greatly increase operating costs and require an overnight stay in Winnipeg. Westbound, a Winnipeg section of the Empire Builder could offer a same day connection, but eastbound passengers would have to spend the night and most of the next day in Winnipeg to connect to a hypothetical Winnipeg section of the Empire Builder.
Interconnectivity is key to making the economics work!
Even the USPS delivers on July 3, but Kalmbach? Therefore I will add some insight into the matter of politicians versus trains.
It will be interesting to see who Ed Ellis and Iowa Pacific support in the elections. I say this because I recall being informed by the President of Champlin Petroleum, a subsidiary of UP and my employer many years ago, that Union Pacific wanted us to support Tim Werth, a Liberal, in an election in Colorado because he would listen to the railroad’s representatives
It is always difficult to learn from the past, but in the current instance regarding Chi-Milw-MSP added service, the following is instructive: the Milw. Rd. had the majority of business for several obvious reasons, speed, population, etc. CNW had the former not the latter, the “400” notwithstanding. CB&Q had neither, but hauling NP and GN trains to the Pacific Northwest along with their own service provided a rationale. The fact remains is that the old Milw. Rd. route, with restoration to its over 100 years old high, for that time, speed alignments begs for “corridor service.” And it is only one of many “city-pairs” in the USA so deserving.
With the bureaucratic vise of rules and regulation its no wonder we get no new trains or routes, public or private. Hove you ever heard of anyone in Congress streamlining this process?
I just dont get it why its such a costly and time consuming proposition, one train already runs through there, whats the big deal of adding one more train on the very same tracks? So ridiculous!