While I consider any additional long distance service (on a route currently not already in use) to be a long shot until the U.S. and Canada develop a comprehensive transportation plan which includes intercity rail, the best shot at rail travel between Chicago and Calgary after VIA reinstates service on the ex-CP route through Calgary (something not vaguely in the works) would be to connect the VIA and Amtrak systems at Winnipeg, Manitoba with a train running over new route miles from Grand Forks, North Dakota (which last saw service April 30, 1971 just prior to the beginning of Amtrak, when the vestige of GN’s Winnipeg Limited was discontinued).
I’m sure VerMontanaFan isn’t going to listen to what I have to say but hopefully others do. I hope others don’t get into counting trains as to thinking that all trains are equal and that a train at 3pm in the afternoon is the same as a train at 3am in the morning. Look up when Cincinnati’s trains leave. Why do people in Cincinnati not ride their trains? They have to arrive/leave in the middle of the night. I’m thinking a lot of people in Cincinnati don’t even realize Amtrak even stops in Cincinnati. Same with Cleveland. Toledo has 1/3 of the population of Cleveland but higher ridership. They have hours closer to midnight/6am (pre midnight eastbound on the Capitol Limited). Coincidence their ridership is higher? Give Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo trains at good hours and see what happens to their ridership. As for Cleveland/Toledo having 2 trains, in reality they have 1 1/2 trains. Westbound the CL leaves CLE at 2:59am and 3:45am, hardly any difference. It makes sense to have the CL and LSL at these times since they are primarily Chicago to East Coast. On the other hand, the Cardinal makes no sense as a Chicago to East Coast train since the CL and LSL are 6-7 hours faster. It would work well as a Chicago-Cincinnati (and Chicago-Indianapolis) train but the times are horrible. Change the train to travel between Chicago and Cincinnati in daytime hours and the train would have a purpose and ridership between CHI-IND-CIN would skyrocket. So if the train is worthless for Chicago to East Coast travel and worthless for Chicago to Indy/Cincy travel, it is crap (hence the name). Come in, it’s clever! And if you lost your train because some Senator thought his less productive train was more important you’d be upset too.
The unfortunate reality of passenger operation in today’s world is that not every place can have convienent departure and arri
[quote user=“BaltACD”]
Philly Amtrak Fan
I’m sure VerMontanaFan isn’t going to listen to what I have to say but hopefully others do. I hope others don’t get into counting trains as to thinking that all trains are equal and that a train at 3pm in the afternoon is the same as a train at 3am in the morning. Look up when Cincinnati’s trains leave. Why do people in Cincinnati not ride their trains? They have to arrive/leave in the middle of the night. I’m thinking a lot of people in Cincinnati don’t even realize Amtrak even stops in Cincinnati. Same with Cleveland. Toledo has 1/3 of the population of Cleveland but higher ridership. They have hours closer to midnight/6am (pre midnight eastbound on the Capitol Limited). Coincidence their ridership is higher? Give Cleveland, Cincinnati, and Toledo trains at good hours and see what happens to their ridership. As for Cleveland/Toledo having 2 trains, in reality they have 1 1/2 trains. Westbound the CL leaves CLE at 2:59am and 3:45am, hardly any difference. It makes sense to have the CL and LSL at these times since they are primarily Chicago to East Coast. On the other hand, the Cardinal makes no sense as a Chicago to East Coast train since the CL and LSL are 6-7 hours faster. It would work well as a Chicago-Cincinnati (and Chicago-Indianapolis) train but the times are horrible. Change the train to travel between Chicago and Cincinnati in daytime hours and the train would have a purpose and ridership between CHI-IND-CIN would skyrocket. So if the train is worthless for Chicago to East Coast travel and worthless for Chicago to Indy/Cincy travel, it is crap (hence the name). Come in, it’s clever! And if you lost your train because some Senator thought his less productive train was more important you’d be upset too.
&nbs
Philly Amtrak Fan: You need to create a completely new thread and place your most recent post there because it has nothing to do with this thread.
My comparison of ridership at the seven stations in North Dakota with that of the seven on Ohio was specifically to show that there is usage similar to those on Chicago-East Coast routes, in reference to Philly Amtrak Fan’s ridiculous “there isn’t one relevant stop between Minneapolis and Spokane, WA” claim, which was not elaborated on. At all. (And the reason is apparent to all, even if it wasn’t meant as a different thread.)
Instead, a completely new topic was begun about how poor train times are in Ohio. Clearly, this is an off-the-wall, completely different thread. I can’t tell if it is a suggestion this is the reason that ridership on North Dakota’s one Amtrak train is more or less equal to that in Ohio with 1700% more people. As an aside, it’s also interesting to note that Fargo, ND has greater ridership but less population than Erie, PA (on the Lake Shore Limited route) with similar train times, and the ridership at Elyria, OH is much less than at Grand Forks, ND, again though Elyria-Lorain has by far the greater population but comparable unpalatable train times. Night or day, the Empire Builder is indeed more relevant to its online communities than comparable Amtrak trains in Ohio.
With regard to Philly
Nope, it is obnoxious.
I have driven from NE suburb of Detroit to Toledo to catch a train to Chicago vs taking the Chicago to Detroit train. Why? Because it was an hour faster and the seating was more c
Granted, not everyone rides the train so as to enjoy the ride and the scenery. As has been said, traveling up along the Kanawha and New Rivers on the Cardinal is a treat. The Greenbrier is not quite as noticeable, but the entire trip across West Virginia–and into Virginia is worth making. True, it is operated only three days a week in each direction (and that does not work well for me in making a certain desired connection)–but it does give the opportunity to enjoy the land to those who are able to travel on those days.
The first time I rode the Cardinal, it left Chicago in the morning, and the only way I was ale to take it was by spending the night with a nephew and his wife who lived in one of the suburbs near the Burlington. In later years, I was able to make the connection in Chicago and I planned on spending a night in Washington.
WOW!!!
The title of this thead is:
“Would a Chicago to Calgary, AB Passenger Train be viable?”.
It wasn’t “Which Amtrak trains would be a good idea to run”, or, “Where should Amtrak have kept it’s trains”, or, “Which old trains would be good to still have today?”.
Could everyone please keep to the original topic?
Since the through passenger service on the route had disappeared by the winter 1962/1963 schedule, it would appear that it was not a particularly busy train. I don’t think much has changed as far as travel patterns since. It used to be busier in the summer with tourists and tour groups heading for the Rockies, but flying directly to where the scenery is more spectacular soon became a more efficient option in use of limited vacation time.
And of course, if we are talking only economics, very few passenger trains are viable. Exceptions such as the Rocky Mountaineer succeed by marketing the trip as a cruise experience at VERY expensive ticket prices. But then, most other forms of transport are also subsidised but less visibly.
One area that the Rocky Mountaineer exceeds expectations compared to Amtrak is with the additional packages you can buy, extended hotel stays, side excursions and the like. RM makes money on all that stuff and at the end of paying and taking one of the side packages you feel as though you got value for your money that you spent. For example, extend a night at the Fairmont Banff or Fairmont Lake Louise…cheaper via RM than doing it yourself at the front desk.
Now go and open the Amtrak vacations / vacation packages brochure and what do you see. Ho-hum, and you can probably do a lot better financially on your own.
This is where Amtrak consistently looses in perception and in capturing additional revenue. It’s marketing is targeted towards the budget traveler and it’s offerings reflect that (one could argue so do the lack of any profit). Yet look at who rides Amtrak…is it really the budget traveler or is it well above the budget traveler looking for a different experience or change of pace. So I would argue that Amtrak does not know the market as well as RM does.
I believe is from Chicago gto Winnepeg I believe a route that needs exploring is from Chicago to Winnipeg on CN lines through Wisconsin and up through Northern Minnesota. Think about it, we have only 4 rail passenger links across the entire border with Canada and once past lower Michigan the Next one is way out in NW Washington state. I think it would boost both Amtrak and Via in ridership. Jay J. Ruediger, Up North.
The last service from the United States to Winnipeg was a stub run from Grand Forks which connected with the “Empire Builder” or “Western Star” and was discontinued on April 30, 1971. That says a lot about the demand for such a service even with a connection to St. Paul.
But that’s not the issue. The first issue is “will it boost both Amtrak and VIA ridership enough to pay for the service net of all Government incentives” and the following issue, really just as important, is “will the ridership be consistent enough to sustain the train, seasonally and yearly, without losing excessive money at off times”. I can’t really imagine trains on that route, even operated with a modern equivalent of RDCs, doing either.
Agreed. Amtrak subsidies should be reserved for necessary services. As CMStPnP pointed out earlier, this seems like a service that the well-off seek as something akin to a land cruise as in Rocky Mountaineer with deluxe service and fares. Leave that to the private sector.
Winnipeg does sound like a better route. Start out dropping / adding cars to the Empire Builder at best location. If arrivel times good at Winnipeg then connections to both Canadians and the Church Hill trains. Need to have lots of schedule slop connecting to VIA departing Winnipeg.
We still have the problem of getting funds for equipment for the service. This equipment would have to be assigned equipment to this route not the common US equipment. This is because an additional problem is the equipment would need additional wiring and switching equipment to be compatible with VIA and Amtrak HEP equipment.
Do not believe VIA would allow Amtrak equipment with out it being able to have a substitute loco(s) to power train.
VIA’s HEP come in on the forward left side of cars, is routed to the car’s electric bus and exits on right rear. Right front HEP passes thru car and exits left rear without normally supplying car. But that route supplys the next car that connects on its left side. That way every other car is supplied from one side or other of loco consist. That is why VIA can operate such long HEP Canadians That is when two locos provide each == half HEP to train. If one route of VIA HEP fails switching equipment in each left side powered car allows HEP from other route.
Amtrak connects each HEP side in each car to a common bus but each side can be isolated == left or right train route if a failure of one route.
Yes if Amtrak would use the VIA HEP system on the Auto train Amtrak could have many more passenger cars with 2 P-40s each providing half the HEP demand load.
Amtrak does not have the Money or Superliners Cars, to Start a New Service like this. Amtrak is luckly to have just enough Superliners cars for service they have Now in 2017. Amtrak needs more Superliners cars for any new service.[2c]
Except in this case Amtrak’s primary clientel is the budget traveler so perhaps they do know their market better than you think. Look at it this way, sleeper cars are added and deducted from train consists depending on the season, not so much with coaches…why do you think that is?
When friends and I rode CP from Winnepeg we flew there via Northwest Orient airlines, this was in 1974. Then took CP Canadian to Banff in old time Pullman berths with curtains made into a couch during day and stayed 5 days taking Grey Line tours to Lake louise and Icefields. On to Vancouver, going thru the Spiral Tunnels, ferry to Victoria Returned via CN Super Continental in a day-nighter car with nice reclining seats, it was upgrade from reg coach. Spent a couple of days at Jasper Park lodge and back to Winnepeg to fly home. I’ve never been on VIA and they use the old CN route, not quite as scenic as CP. I can’t afford the Rocky Mountaineer special train. Glad I did it when it was affordable and still run by the two main RR’s in Canada. Don;t know if there were any flights out of Chicago, we just flew direct from St. Lou with stop at Minneapolis.