Bringing back the Pioneer and North Coast Hiawatha?

[trainman74]

Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even theoretically have.

From 1981-83, there was a state-supported train, the Spirit of California, that ran LAX-OAK-SAC on an overnight schedule. The return of that train has occasionally been studied/proposed, but California's budget problems presumably make that a no-go for the foreseeable future.

 

[Anderson]

Let me go ahead and offer a reverse set of observations: A lot of the European trains that work on overnight routes, in addition to not being the only train on that particular route, work because they link various metropolitan areas during "off hours" (5 PM out, 9 AM in is a good limit...though if you can push that back to 5:30/8:30, all the better). One of the biggest weaknesses in Amtrak's system is that there is not a single LD route that they run such a connection on. Not one: The westbound trains manage something close to it heading to Chicago, but there is no eastbound equivalent (the LSL burns a full day getting into NYP, and the CL gets into DC around noon). Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even theoretically have.

There's a reason that you had so much fighting over the NEC-Chicago markets over the years: The fastest trains guaranteed an evening out/morning in schedule between those areas, allowing an overnight business trip. It's viable, it's workable, etc., and on a lot of routes it would be a more workable alternative than last minute flights in terms of sheer cost (this came up elsewhere...companies with a lot of travel between two locations will cut deals with the airlines to ensure affordable seat availability).

It's true that this is not going to be a massive market for Amtrak overnight, but it's something they're not even trying. Yes, I get that a lot of it is equipment-related, but the utter lack of even trying this...it gets at me, you know? There might be market research saying it's a no-go, and I can respect that, but I don't even see that much out there.

And as you know from the old Official Guide, the country used to be full of overnight business friendly schedules. Of course the Atlanta to Washington leg of today's Crescent is ideal for that.

At least in the East (and on the West Coast to a lesser extent), most markets with an 8-12 hour trip had an overnight train...or a daylight train with a full diner (witness the Pennsy/NY,NH,&H services from Boston to DC). This is a lot of what I'm looking at.

And actually, the Northstar wouldn't be a bad move...if you could get MN to spring for an extra set of cars with re-instituting it (there are plans to put the MSP-Duluth train back together), you could simply extend a morning train down to Chicago while arranging for one of the evening trains to be a set of equipment turned in Chicago.

As to "educating" the business community, there are markets where the airfares are astronomical and where you could actually fight the airlines on cost and win. Des Moines is a classic example...a short-notice flight from Des Moines to Chicago without a weekend stay can clock over $1000, and even with a week of notice you're looking at $650+. Now, Des Moines is a particularly bad case on the airline front...but as much as that city is trying to lure airlines in with deals, it'd probably just be easier to do a deal with Amtrak. Other places (like Omaha) aren't nearly as bad, but then you're slapping on two hours of time to get to the airport...at that point, you're breaking even at best with the airplane versus a solid rail service in terms of time, and having to throw an extra $X into getting to the airport.

Now, at somewhere in the six-seven hour range Des Moines-Chicago isn't an overnight market (though you could run Omaha-Chicago as one at eight hours or so), though with good track you could make it a decent run with 2-3 round trips per day...but (at least on paper) you could easily piggyback Des Moines onto a KCY-DAL train (and I am quietly cursing the ICC for letting The Rock dump the Minneapolis-Kansas City train when they did). The biggest problem is that it wouldn't line up with timetables. The objective, IMHO, would be to run a "big city" connection while trying to arrange it to hit places with lousy air markets at sane hours in the process (I'm thinking of Detroit and Cleveland as two offenders here: One has no connections to the East Coast, while the other has awful hours on two trains).

 

[Anderson]

Likewise, the Coast Starlight runs this route during the day rather than overnight...in spite of the fact that LA-SF is almost perfectly timed for an overnight trip. That wipes out any appeal to the business community that they might even theoretically have.

From 1981-83, there was a state-supported train, the Spirit of California, that ran LAX-OAK-SAC on an overnight schedule. The return of that train has occasionally been studied/proposed, but California's budget problems presumably make that a no-go for the foreseeable future.

...see that smoke rising off my head? That's me fuming about upside down priorities within the rail business. I know you'd never get to 100%+ CR on that train, but it seems like such a solid operation to look at that it boggles my mind that it isn't under active consideration.

 

[trainman74]

I recently read a post-apocalyptic fantasy novel that included a Surfliner sleeping car, which presumably had been built for, and was running as part of, a revived Spirit of California. (At least, up until the apocalyptic event took place.)

 

[Anderson]

I recently read a post-apocalyptic fantasy novel that included a Surfliner sleeping car, which presumably had been built for, and was running as part of, a revived Spirit of California. (At least, up until the apocalyptic event took place.)

Huh. Was that the sequel to Ariel? Something Beach? I never read that book.

Utterly random aside: Watching 500 Days of Summer with some folks in town. I'm such a dork that I swear they have two characters going to San Diego on the Surfliner but it sure looks like they used standard Superliners for the exterior shot (though I think they used California cars for the interiors).

 

[rrdude]

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.

I don't think the NCH is necessarily nuts as it would run through most of Montana's major cities.

Well, with your screen name, I would HOPE you don't think it's nuts, even thou it IS nuts.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

North Coast Hiawatha = nuts. Pioneer = a good idea and a missing link in Amtrak's route structure. Linked to that would be service from Texas to Denver to connect with it.

I don't think the NCH is necessarily nuts as it would run through most of Montana's major cities.

Well, with your screen name, I would HOPE you don't think it's nuts, even thou it IS nuts.

So... http://www.anthony-thomas.com/shop/images/uploads/Products/FancyMixedNuts.jpg

 

[TN Tin Man]

You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.

Southern Montana wants the North Coast Hiawatha. Southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon and Colorado want the Pioneer. As part of PRIIA, Amtrak did a study into restoring such service. The results weren't promising. But yet passenger rail advocates there disagree with Amtrak and say that they underestimated ridership numbers.

This is the map of the proposed routes: http://www.sandpoint...ute_map_800.gif

And the pioneer: http://juckins.net/m...sed_pioneer.gif

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

I don't think so. If I could aggressively fund and expand Amtrak, I would bring back those routes, but they'd be low on my priority list, due to low ridership.

If these states want to bring back service, then it should either be part of a mutli-state subsidized train, or part of a series of new and expanded LD routes, probably including CHI-FL, The Broadway Limited route, the Lone Star route and TX-CO, along with upgrades and improvements to the existing LD trains.

When it comes to the NCH, the advocates of the train are pointing out that there is very little air or bus service to Southern Montana, so an Amtrak train would seize a large share of the long-distance market.

But is the market in Southern Montana big enough anyway? I don't think it's that big, and just simply spending money on either planes or trains to sasitify small-state senators isn't too far from the "Bridge to Nowhere", which was sold on access reasons to that small community.

I don't want Amtrak to come under criticism for running "trains to nowhere", as much as people are saying already.

I've read through this whole thread and can't believe the "Republican" responses from members that have shown in other posts to be Democrats. (Globalists)

As far as the Pioneer is concearned. We in the fly-over states would love to have rail (tax payer funded mass transit) like the east and mid-west have. We in Wyoming would like to have an option to driving. Right now we subsidize the one airline that flys into our state and still drive hours to get to that airport. If profit is the driving factor for rail service, how many of the existing routes should be history like Pioneer. (Oh, my mistake, east coast {large state Senators} votes)

In the East and Mid-west mass transit will be run into an area just because the population is "poor". How about the parts of the country that are are transportation "poor". Give us in southern Wyoming an option other than driving I-80 to SLC or DEN. By the way I-80 is paid for by you fuel tax payers in the east.

I watch the HSR threads and the Billions of dollars involved for existing rail lines in states like WS, IL, and FL, money spent just for speed. How about a few million to serve the remote parts of the nation? ( or are we just a bridge to no where?)

We out here in the wild-wild west may never become true "Blue". At least as a "Red" state we will spend tax money wisely. How many other States are in the Black?

We are!

 

[Anderson]

WY Tin Man,

Got a question: Given the projected operating deficits, is there any chance that the states out there would be willing to kick in a percentage of the deficits in running these trains a la the old Spirit of California? I'm asking mainly because...well, sub-30% CR is very hard for a lot of folks to swallow, and even Amtrak has trouble doing it.

 

[jis]

WY Tin Man,

Got a question: Given the projected operating deficits, is there any chance that the states out there would be willing to kick in a percentage of the deficits in running these trains a la the old Spirit of California? I'm asking mainly because...well, sub-30% CR is very hard for a lot of folks to swallow, and even Amtrak has trouble doing it.

If such a train is introduced it would be part of Amtrak California and presumably would be covered by the overall subsidy that California kicks in for that program.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.

Southern Montana wants the North Coast Hiawatha. Southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon and Colorado want the Pioneer. As part of PRIIA, Amtrak did a study into restoring such service. The results weren't promising. But yet passenger rail advocates there disagree with Amtrak and say that they underestimated ridership numbers.

This is the map of the proposed routes: http://www.sandpoint...ute_map_800.gif

And the pioneer: http://juckins.net/m...sed_pioneer.gif

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

I don't think so. If I could aggressively fund and expand Amtrak, I would bring back those routes, but they'd be low on my priority list, due to low ridership.

If these states want to bring back service, then it should either be part of a mutli-state subsidized train, or part of a series of new and expanded LD routes, probably including CHI-FL, The Broadway Limited route, the Lone Star route and TX-CO, along with upgrades and improvements to the existing LD trains.

When it comes to the NCH, the advocates of the train are pointing out that there is very little air or bus service to Southern Montana, so an Amtrak train would seize a large share of the long-distance market.

But is the market in Southern Montana big enough anyway? I don't think it's that big, and just simply spending money on either planes or trains to sasitify small-state senators isn't too far from the "Bridge to Nowhere", which was sold on access reasons to that small community.

I don't want Amtrak to come under criticism for running "trains to nowhere", as much as people are saying already.

I've read through this whole thread and can't believe the "Republican" responses from members that have shown in other posts to be Democrats. (Globalists)

As far as the Pioneer is concearned. We in the fly-over states would love to have rail (tax payer funded mass transit) like the east and mid-west have. We in Wyoming would like to have an option to driving. Right now we subsidize the one airline that flys into our state and still drive hours to get to that airport. If profit is the driving factor for rail service, how many of the existing routes should be history like Pioneer. (Oh, my mistake, east coast {large state Senators} votes)

In the East and Mid-west mass transit will be run into an area just because the population is "poor". How about the parts of the country that are are transportation "poor". Give us in southern Wyoming an option other than driving I-80 to SLC or DEN. By the way I-80 is paid for by you fuel tax payers in the east.

I watch the HSR threads and the Billions of dollars involved for existing rail lines in states like WS, IL, and FL, money spent just for speed. How about a few million to serve the remote parts of the nation? ( or are we just a bridge to no where?)

We out here in the wild-wild west may never become true "Blue". At least as a "Red" state we will spend tax money wisely. How many other States are in the Black?

We are!

Unfortunately, it is a bridge to nowhere.

The "bridge to nowhere" was in fact sold on "access" reasons to small communities.

Even already, with I-80 and everything else, states like Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are "net-subsidy" states that get more in tax dollars than they get out. Meanwhile, states like NJ, CA, IL and NY are all "tax donor" states, meaning they have more tax dollars going out than in. Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are some of the most subsized states per capita. There's one thing if a LD train runs through that state or there's a train serving the most populous city in that state, but when it comes to HSR, I would be furious if Wyoming or Idaho were getting money for HSR while the Portal Tunnels or True-NEC-HSR were still short on capital funding.

 

[bretton88]

Wyoming is flush with cash right now. Massive surpluses. They could easily pony up some money to get the Pioneer running, or at least a Denver-SLC connection running via the Wyoming route.

 

[trainviews]

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

In short - no - at least not from a business perspective.

Seen locally though, from small or rural communities with no other transportation alternatives than driving for hours or using a local airport with often infrequent and expensive service, the efforts to bring back the train is understandable, but honestly in the big picture still using a lot of money on just a few people, when large populations in other parts of the country are just as underserved.

Generally speaking trains make most sense in medium length corridors. Services under 3-4 hours will usually kill the air market and be an attractive alternative to driving, especially if the speed is not too uncompetitive.

Runs up to a bit more than double of that will attract significant ridership not least if there is several midsized stops on the way, which might not have close by larger airport. Overnight runs between larger cities are also attractive.

All Amtraks LD routes (except the auto train) are losing between 20 and 50 cents per passenger mile (YTD, March 2011 monthly performance report). One train a day runs over distances taking multiple days are expensive to run and virtually impossible to get a good economy in. Running long stretches through very lightly populated areas with no significant local one-town-to-the-next-markets to fill up seats exacerbates this problem. And on a third of the way any market is more or less killed because they have to be served at odd hours.

Instead the money and the focus should be on getting faster and more frequent service in alredy served corridors, and getting service into unserved corridors with large potential. That will get many more riders and contribute much more to solve the nation's transportation problems.

The most underserved areas today, when you factor in population size and density is in my oppinion the Southeast and Texas. The potential in the Texas triangle is obvious. I also think Atlanta screams to be developed as a hub for services to Memphis, Nashville, Macon, Charleston, Savannah and north Florida, as well as decent service on the route of the Crescent. The LA-Las Vegas-Phoenix triangle is also worth looking into, and so is quite a few in the Midwest.

Yes I know that states like Georgia and Texas have done nothing to advance train service, but that is another discussion and doesn't make the potential for trains there any smaller. On the other hand states like Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, Washington, Virginia and North Carolina are developing excactly that sort of service, often with considerable succes in spite of the fact that the current round of speed upgrades haven't started kicking in yet.

Just curious, are you a 'transplant'? You have an amazing knowledge of US transportation and geography, otherwise!

Heh - thanks, but no, not really. I did live in NYC for a short while years back, and working in foreign news here (Copenhagen, Denmark), the US looms pretty large. The rest have to be ascribed to general nerdiness, I guess.

Oh - the Swedish x2000 high speed to Stockholm just pulled out of Copenhagen Central and passed in front of by my windows before speeding up and heading for the bridge...

 

[trainviews]

You know what I always found odd? That some of the biggest Amtrak advocates come from Montana, Idaho, North Dakota and southeastern Oregon; lightly populated states (or parts of states) that haven't been served by Amtrak in a long time.

Southern Montana wants the North Coast Hiawatha. Southern Idaho, southeastern Oregon and Colorado want the Pioneer. As part of PRIIA, Amtrak did a study into restoring such service. The results weren't promising. But yet passenger rail advocates there disagree with Amtrak and say that they underestimated ridership numbers.

This is the map of the proposed routes: http://www.sandpoint...ute_map_800.gif

And the pioneer: http://juckins.net/m...sed_pioneer.gif

Is bringing back these routes a good idea?

I don't think so. If I could aggressively fund and expand Amtrak, I would bring back those routes, but they'd be low on my priority list, due to low ridership.

If these states want to bring back service, then it should either be part of a mutli-state subsidized train, or part of a series of new and expanded LD routes, probably including CHI-FL, The Broadway Limited route, the Lone Star route and TX-CO, along with upgrades and improvements to the existing LD trains.

When it comes to the NCH, the advocates of the train are pointing out that there is very little air or bus service to Southern Montana, so an Amtrak train would seize a large share of the long-distance market.

But is the market in Southern Montana big enough anyway? I don't think it's that big, and just simply spending money on either planes or trains to sasitify small-state senators isn't too far from the "Bridge to Nowhere", which was sold on access reasons to that small community.

I don't want Amtrak to come under criticism for running "trains to nowhere", as much as people are saying already.

I've read through this whole thread and can't believe the "Republican" responses from members that have shown in other posts to be Democrats. (Globalists)

As far as the Pioneer is concearned. We in the fly-over states would love to have rail (tax payer funded mass transit) like the east and mid-west have. We in Wyoming would like to have an option to driving. Right now we subsidize the one airline that flys into our state and still drive hours to get to that airport. If profit is the driving factor for rail service, how many of the existing routes should be history like Pioneer. (Oh, my mistake, east coast {large state Senators} votes)

In the East and Mid-west mass transit will be run into an area just because the population is "poor". How about the parts of the country that are are transportation "poor". Give us in southern Wyoming an option other than driving I-80 to SLC or DEN. By the way I-80 is paid for by you fuel tax payers in the east.

I watch the HSR threads and the Billions of dollars involved for existing rail lines in states like WS, IL, and FL, money spent just for speed. How about a few million to serve the remote parts of the nation? ( or are we just a bridge to no where?)

We out here in the wild-wild west may never become true "Blue". At least as a "Red" state we will spend tax money wisely. How many other States are in the Black?

We are!

Unfortunately, it is a bridge to nowhere.

The "bridge to nowhere" was in fact sold on "access" reasons to small communities.

Even already, with I-80 and everything else, states like Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are "net-subsidy" states that get more in tax dollars than they get out. Meanwhile, states like NJ, CA, IL and NY are all "tax donor" states, meaning they have more tax dollars going out than in. Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming are some of the most subsized states per capita. There's one thing if a LD train runs through that state or there's a train serving the most populous city in that state, but when it comes to HSR, I would be furious if Wyoming or Idaho were getting money for HSR while the Portal Tunnels or True-NEC-HSR were still short on capital funding.

I agree with Tin Man that just speculating in operating surpluses or losses should not be the only parameter for installing a train service. There are solid environmental and social arguments for subsidised services. But on the other hand getting the most bang for the buck can't be disregarded either.

Rail has the potential to solve a number transportation problems:

- moving large numbers of people along heavily traveled corridors, easing congestion on highways as well as in airports.

- doing so in an environmentally more sustainable way than cars or planes.

- providing connectivity to communities often enhancing economic development.

- providing a transportation alternative especially important to people who for some reason cannot drive.

Each of these are legitimate goals, but the aim must be to fulful as many of them as possible as well as possible with the money that can be squeezed out for trains. The first two only rail can do and only in relatively populated areas if it is to have any bigger impact. When it comes to connectivity, remote places might have better use of good road connections, that will take you in several directions or a subsidized airport bringing people directly to a larger hub instead of a very long train journey. And as for the transportation alternatives subsidised air service for long distance and a reasonable intercity bus network for shorter runs might be able to reach a larger part of the population for less money even though buses are a less convenient mode of travel.

And actually rail is NOT a very efficient way of moving a relatively limited number of people over very long distances taking much, much longer than flying.

So especially with rail service being so underdeveloped in the US focus really should be on the low hanging fruit - of which there are plenty. At least high volume corridors should go first. It might be good politics to buy support for rail from senators and congressmen in sparsely populated states and areas by installing trains there, but it is rather poor policy in terms of problem solving. And in my opinion polticially it might backfire. A concerted lobbying campaign to restore service on routes like the NCH or the Pioneer might prove succesful short term. But it will also use a lot of money that could benefit more people on other routes and play into the hand of the rail opponents (perpetual large subsidies benefitting next to noone, subsidised land cruises for holiday makers and all that). In reality it will only be secured until the next congress majority proposes its' first budget....

Actually the best way in the long term of securing rail service to relatively sparsely places like Wyoming might be to back a radical build-out between the population centers simply to get rail to be an indispensable part of the national transportation system again, thus building a much broader political support. But it won't get the local train running next year - or next decade probably...

 

[Anderson]

trainviews,

I agree wholeheartedly with subsidizing rail service...but I think you have to come up with a floor CR to shoot for. Now, that floor could be 80%...it could be 60%...it could be 25%, depending on the parameters, but there needs to be a floor for a daily service to achieve after X years in operation. Otherwise you have a hole in the tracks into which money is being poured, and equipment that could be better used getting diverted to run half-empty.

Naturally, there are going to be exceptions (one could argue that some of the trains running to/from the NEC spine are losing money but bolstering the numbers on the NE Regional service and/or the Acela), and one may need to look at an overall operation rather than just a single train...but at least from a business standpoint, it's a dubious situation.

Of course, a second question comes up: I expect that the answer is "no", but are there any areas (and western Nebraska seems to be screaming this...seven cities out there get something like $12 million in air service subsidies when I'd think you could run two or three middle-of-nowhere trains for a similar operating deficit, and serve perhaps another 15-20 communities in the process) where killing off EAS subsidies and running a train would make sense?

Edit: And actually, another question: Though the dynamics would likely stink, would there be any sense (in lieu of an "actual" NCH) in running a daylight train on part of the NCH route instead of a full-on sleeper train? I know all of the dynamics about lost business and the like, which is why this is a question rather than a full-on suggestion.

 

[Sam31452]

There is absolutely no way bringing back those trains. especially the Ogden-Wyoming-Denver route is quite boring (landscape-wise) and will attract as many customers as a fridge dealer in Nunavut, Greeenland would.

In other words: the idea is completely nuts, although I like the idea of getting a few more long distance trains.

 

[trainviews]

trainviews,

I agree wholeheartedly with subsidizing rail service...but I think you have to come up with a floor CR to shoot for. Now, that floor could be 80%...it could be 60%...it could be 25%, depending on the parameters, but there needs to be a floor for a daily service to achieve after X years in operation. Otherwise you have a hole in the tracks into which money is being poured, and equipment that could be better used getting diverted to run half-empty.

Exactly my point - plus you need an asessment of what value for how many people you get for the subsidy - aside from the niceness of having a train.

Of course, a second question comes up: I expect that the answer is "no", but are there any areas (and western Nebraska seems to be screaming this...seven cities out there get something like $12 million in air service subsidies when I'd think you could run two or three middle-of-nowhere trains for a similar operating deficit, and serve perhaps another 15-20 communities in the process) where killing off EAS subsidies and running a train would make sense?

I am in no way deep enough into the numbers to give an economic assessment on that, but even if it makes financially sense, it might be a bad deal for the area. The air service gives a quick link to a hub (probably O'Hare) with a great multitude of connections, basically to the whole world. The train enhances the connectivity to a series of communities, but will still be a very long journey to any larger population centers with excellent further connections. No community today can afford to be 24 hours away from the rest of the world...

 

[MeisterEric]

"Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled."

that was back in 1997....these days Amtrak is getting record ridership, year after year.

with the right routing, frequency, and timetable, the Pioneer route should do much better these days...(also considering the $4 /gallon for gas these days)

 

[George Harris]

No community today can afford to be 24 hours away from the rest of the world...

Why not?

 

[George Harris]

Everything you say makes good sense. It would be a challenge however, to educate an entire generation (or two), of business travelers that could take advantage of your proposal to discard their beloved quick flights and comfortable business hotels with all their amenities...

Talked to any business travelers lately? Airport avoidance is considered highly desirable by many.

 

[MeisterEric]

"Remove your belt, your watch, your shoes…."

 

"$7 for a pillow?!?"

 

"Extra baggage costs what?!?"

 

"Fasten your seatbelt"

 

"Remain seated during flight"

 

"$150 to cancel/rebook my flight?!?"

 

 

[Anderson]

"Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled."

that was back in 1997....these days Amtrak is getting record ridership, year after year.

with the right routing, frequency, and timetable, the Pioneer route should do much better these days...(also considering the $4 /gallon for gas these days)

I think the heart of the problem is that Amtrak can't exactly afford to take on another "turkey" of a route with 25-30% CR (at best), particularly with the equipment situation being tight. Given the choice, it would probably make more sense to run the Desert Wind again in some form (albeit with a large "drop" consist LAX-LVS...preferably with some sort of "club" or "parlor" option therein to avoid a sleeper squeeze) than to run either the NCH or the Pioneer. I think you could do well with a decent above-coach class that only ran through to Las Vegas there...and there are enough proposals for that route that someone is going to be able to make a credible move sooner or later.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

"Apparently low ridership and farebox ratios was a problem with the original Pioneer and was one of the reasons why it was canceled."

that was back in 1997....these days Amtrak is getting record ridership, year after year.

with the right routing, frequency, and timetable, the Pioneer route should do much better these days...(also considering the $4 /gallon for gas these days)

I think the heart of the problem is that Amtrak can't exactly afford to take on another "turkey" of a route with 25-30% CR (at best), particularly with the equipment situation being tight. Given the choice, it would probably make more sense to run the Desert Wind again in some form (albeit with a large "drop" consist LAX-LVS...preferably with some sort of "club" or "parlor" option therein to avoid a sleeper squeeze) than to run either the NCH or the Pioneer. I think you could do well with a decent above-coach class that only ran through to Las Vegas there...and there are enough proposals for that route that someone is going to be able to make a credible move sooner or later.

Honestly, the Pioneer and NCH are being looked at for political reasons. I don't hear that many people on Amtrak's facebook page say how we need a CHI-FL train, but there's always someone saying "Bring Back the NCH!" or something like that. Politics and CR are inverted in this case.

For the Desert Wind, I'd have to agree that it's the best out of the three dropped western LD routes, cause it goes through Vegas. But here's the main reasons for bring back the DW, and potential alternatives that might work better, do more for the effort required, or are otherwise easier. I'm not saying that the DW shouldn't be brought back in its full form, but there are things that can be done in the short term that make the DW more stable and politically viable in the long term.

1) Restore service to Vegas. Not bad, but if this is the main objective, the LAX-LAV market would be better served by a multi-day corridor service instead of just one train per day.

2) Have another LAX-CHI train, via the City of Los Angeles Route. Not a bad idea in the long-term, but until we start seeing Amtrak being able to create new LD routes, the best thing they can do is to add extra cars to the Southwest Chief and make the Sunset Limited go daily. Remember, most of the people who ride on a LD train aren't riding from end-point to end-point.

3) Restore LAX-DEN service. I could see some need to this, but I think a better short-term solution is to have a LAX-DEN train via Raton and Pueblo. Having another train going over the Raton Pass will make maintaining the line more justified, and the needed improvements to allow an Amtrak train to access Denver from the south are the same improvements that would be required for corridor service between Pueblo, Denver and Cheyenne, plus a Denver-Texas-NOL/HOU train. New Mexico is advocating for access between ABQ and DEN anyway.

4) Because old Amtrak routes need to be restored. Sure, if we follow that argument, then we might as well bring back the Lake Country Limited!

I just don't see myself supporting the NCH or it becoming a reality until BNSF abandons the whole GN line or Amtrak has grown to the point where we're building true-High Speed Rail across the country and there's like 4 four LD trains along the LSL's route (for instance...).

The Pioneer is a bit better, but its main problem is that the route-pairs it serves are either redundant (like SEA/PDX-CHI), are internal between small towns along the route, or are moderate pairs like SEA-PDX and SLC/DEN. Even then, that doesn't place the route high on my priority list.

However, remember what I said about having a CO-TX train? The Pioneer should be incorporate just that. After splitting off from the Cali Zephyr in DEN, the Pioneer heads south towards Texas and the Gulf Coast. The result? Many more new city pairs are created, like SEA/PDX-DFW-Texas Cities, and TX-CO, and SEA/PDX-NOL (if it goes that far). Etc Etc.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Anyone who thinks that additional long distance routes will be restored/added by Amtrak is a dreamer. With the current mentality in Washington, we will be lucky to keep what we currently have. No capital funds have been appropriated for new Western long distance equipment and the current equipment is getting older and more worn each day.

 

[Larry Scheib]

I think the Pioneer route has to be pieced together in a similar fashion as the Cascades route from Portland to Vancouver BC. The line could start running North-South in Colorado along the front range, maybe from Albuequerque to Cheyenne. It could use the line that is planned to support Denver's future NW line which will run through Boulder and onto Longmont; similar to what the Cascades Amtrak line does with Sounder trains. This service would provide for a burgeoning area where demand would be greatest. Once there is proof of concept the line could be extended south to El Paso, again sharing lines, this time with the Roadrunner tracks. It could then be extended west to Ogden and so on and so on. Amtrak could piece it together in this fashion minimizing the need for the fusion of large sums of money and yet proving its viability.

Food for thought,

Lars