Need to ashcan current EB and have a CHI to MSP route

[Anderson]

1) I was not actually aware of Metra's equipment situation being so tight. I know that equipment doesn't tend to be "lying around", but I didn't realize things were quite so squeezed there (I generally assume that there's an extra set or two that allows the primary stuff to be rotated in and out).

2) I was led to understand that the Milwaukee Road had done something along this line back in the 60s with reasonable success (using gallery cars on the MSP-CHI run).

3) And yes, I had forgotten that this was in place. As a serious follow-on, where do the buses "kick in" on the Zephyr (or do they have them set up?) in the event of a catastrophic delay? Omaha?

 

[jphjaxfl]

I lived in Minneapolis from 1975 through 1996. There has always been a demand for at least 2 trains in each direction. Immediately prior to Amtrak, there were 4 daily trains in each direction and 1 weekend only train. The current CP line which was Milwaukee Road hosted 2 trains in each direction and the BNSF line which was BN hosted 2 daily trains plus the weekend only train. That changed to Empire Builder only on May 1, 1971. Within less than a year a tri-weekly NorthCoastHiawatha was started as a branch of the Empire Builder from Minneapolis to Spokane. In not too much longer, the NorthCoastHiawatha became a seperate tri weekly train from Minneapolis to Seattle and daily between Minneapolis and Chicago. It departed Chicago at 10:30AM and arrived Minneapolis at 6:20PM and left Minneapolis at 12:30and arrived Chicago at 8:20PM and made great connections with the Floridian which left Chicago at 9:00PM and arrived at 7:00AM. On NorthCoastHiawatha Days, the train included Sleepers, dining car, Dome Lounge and Dome Coaches and Dome Parlor Car. On Hiawatha Days, the train carried Dome Coaches, a Ranch Counter lounge dining car originally built for the Empire Builder and a Dome Parlor Car. The Dome Parlor Cars were Burlington round end or square end Parlors. Both the Empire Builder and the Hiawatha did very well between Chicago and Minneapolis. It was hard to get a seat in the Parlor Car unless you reserved a while in advance. The Empire Builder even had a Parlor Car for a while because prior to Amtrak, all the day trains had Parlor Cars. After the Builder dropped its Parlor, people would buy a bedroom or roomette for day service between Chicago and Minneapolis. I remember pulling into stations in Wisconsin on both the Empire Builder and Hiawatha where large crowds were waiting to board. Around 1979-1980, the Northcoast Hiawatha was discontinued and an overnight train in conjunction with Minnesota State funded Minneapolis-Duluth service was started. It was convenient for overnight travel to Chicago one way and returning from Chicago on the Empire Builder. The NorthStar carried a 10/6 Sleeper, amfleet coaches and an amcafe. Parlor cars had been killed and many of the people who used the Parlors started flying as the schedule became less reliable due to deteriorating track. There is a huge market between the Twin Cities for quality reliable passenger train service including a first class service similar to Acela express.

 

[Anderson]

Let me go ahead and ask: Though it's not currently served by Amtrak, what would the dynamics of running the MSP-CHI line through Iowa instead of Wisconsin be? I know it's longer, but my thinking is that you'd piggyback on the Iowa City-Chicago line that's already planned, and route through Des Moines. It's not the quickest route possible and this isn't an ideal fix, but I'm wondering if, in light of the Wisconsin fiasco, it wouldn't be better to just reroute the project and cut WI out of the loop entirely. I'm also thinking that it might be cheaper to build one higher-speed line going west and split it at Des Moines than to do two entirely separate lines. Again...not ideal, but it's the hand Walker put on the table.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

"not an ideal fix" it is no fix at all. You'll have that new service competing against the daily EB service, which runs faster, cheaper, and with Superliners. It probably is less prone to delays than the new route as well.

Juxtaposed like that, said route would be a flop.

 

[afigg]

One suggestion I would offer is to keep the existing level of service as-is, and institute a train from Chicago, through WI, MSP, and then to Winnipeg. This would be a one-night run. Dealing with the Governor's attitude in WI (and also the Legislature's collective attitude as well -- the WI legislature is now mahjority Republican) is going to be tough and very challenging, though. Badger State rail advocates will look for all the help they can get.

If Minnesota were to fund a daily train from Chicago to Minneapolis-St Paul over the existing Empire Builder route for a second service frequency, Wisconsin would have no reason to try to prevent it or interfere. If the second service train did not replace a Hiawatha in the schedule, it would provide an additional daily train to Milwaukee at no cost to Wisconsin. The key is that someone other than Wisconsin picks up the tab.

A second day time train would make more sense: leave CHI in the morning, MSP to CHI in the late afternoon. The current 8+ hour trip time is likely too long to do it with a single trainset however. Unless Amtrak were to provide Amfleet Is for the train, probably not enough equipment to add the service in the near future. IL, Iowa, and for that matter CA got funding in the HSIPR grants to buy new rolling stock, so the current equipment allotment for the Lincoln service will be available to use elsewhere once the new cars are delivered. Or maybe, to make a point, Minnesota buys the 2 Talgos from Wisconsin to use for the new service.

Minnesota did get $40 million in the FY10 HSIPR grants to upgrade the St. Paul Union Depot to a multimodal hub station. That could provide motivation to have more than 1 Amtrak train a day serving the station while playing the long game for future HSR service from Chicago through Wisconsin.

 

[Wildcat]

Hathaway has full control if/when they want it. They own the joint and ownership is ownership, period. That Warren likes trains (a lot) means his RR is going to be as Amtrak-friendly as it can be, given the needs of the freight railroad and its priorities. Now to the person who thinks the EB is a failure... that's flat wrong. It makes buckets of money. Now, that does not say it cannot be improved and that some better contingency plans for bad weather (which happens through the Hi-line all the time) should be implemented. But how lame-brained is it to suggest that the train start in Minneapolis rather than Chicago. Chicago is the one true metropolis on the route. Starting the EB in MSP would kill it, which is maybe this guy's idea. Besides, it's not the segment between Chicago and Minneapolis that's been the problem with weather and all -- it's between Minneapolis and the west coast. So cutting off Chicago would serve no earthly purpose other than to slash ridership altogether.

 

[Anderson]

"not an ideal fix" it is no fix at all. You'll have that new service competing against the daily EB service, which runs faster, cheaper, and with Superliners. It probably is less prone to delays than the new route as well.

Juxtaposed like that, said route would be a flop.

I would agree with you in the absolute if Wisconsin weren't getting in the way. With that said, what's the planned average speed of the Chicago-Iowa City(-Des Moines) connection (all the talk of top speeds always seems to omit average speeds).

As to the other idea tossed out, I'm iffy about the idea of a Winnipeg connection...border issues and all leap to mind as problems, but if there's demand in the MSP-Winnipeg market to accompany CHI-MSP, bundling the two would be just fine as a way around the need for Walker to agree to fund it per the 750-mile rule.

 

[Ispolkom]

One suggestion I would offer is to keep the existing level of service as-is, and institute a train from Chicago, through WI, MSP, and then to Winnipeg. This would be a one-night run. Dealing with the Governor's attitude in WI (and also the Legislature's collective attitude as well -- the WI legislature is now mahjority Republican) is going to be tough and very challenging, though. Badger State rail advocates will look for all the help they can get.

If Minnesota were to fund a daily train from Chicago to Minneapolis-St Paul over the existing Empire Builder route for a second service frequency, Wisconsin would have no reason to try to prevent it or interfere. If the second service train did not replace a Hiawatha in the schedule, it would provide an additional daily train to Milwaukee at no cost to Wisconsin. The key is that someone other than Wisconsin picks up the tab.

A second day time train would make more sense: leave CHI in the morning, MSP to CHI in the late afternoon. The current 8+ hour trip time is likely too long to do it with a single trainset however. Unless Amtrak were to provide Amfleet Is for the train, probably not enough equipment to add the service in the near future. IL, Iowa, and for that matter CA got funding in the HSIPR grants to buy new rolling stock, so the current equipment allotment for the Lincoln service will be available to use elsewhere once the new cars are delivered. Or maybe, to make a point, Minnesota buys the 2 Talgos from Wisconsin to use for the new service.

Minnesota did get $40 million in the FY10 HSIPR grants to upgrade the St. Paul Union Depot to a multimodal hub station. That could provide motivation to have more than 1 Amtrak train a day serving the station while playing the long game for future HSR service from Chicago through Wisconsin.

Unfortunately, this is all pie in the sky. There is no way on God's green earth that Minnesota is going to come up with any money for passenger railroads in the next 4 years.

1) Minnesota is looking at a $6 billion hole in its budget. That's about a sixth of the total state budget. There's no money for railroads.

2) Both the state house of representatives and the state senate are controlled by Republicans, the latter for the first time in forty years (or almost a century, if you want to be technical). While Minnesota Republicans aren't as anti-passenger-rail as Wisconsin's new governor, trains aren't on their agenda.

3) Minnesota's 8th congressional district is no longer represented by Jim Oberstar, who was head of the House Transportation Committee.

4) The North Star commuter line has not gotten the ridership backers had hoped, and is already being used as a poster child for the uselessness of passenger rail.

If we're lucky, we'll get the Central Corridor light rail line built, and Amtrak moved back to SPUD. Anything more just isn't in the cards.

 

[henryj]

I think this guy brings up a valid point. The question is, is the 400 mile market totally dead as far as passenger rail is concerned? I did some research on this route in the 1956 Official Guide and here is what was listed. These are only the premium trains you understand. There were many more locals and mail trains.

C&NW had two trains a day on their 419 mile route. The Twin Cities 400, a day train and the North Western Limited a night train.

The Milwaukee Road had four trains a day on their 421 mile route. The Morning and Afternoon Hiawatha's, the Olympian Hiawatha and the overnight Pioneer.

The CB&Q route handled 5 trains a day on their 437 mile route. The Morning and Afternoon Zephyrs, the North Coast Limited, the Empire Builder and the overnight Blackhawk/Mainstreeter/Western Star.

The night trains took around 9 hours. The day trains ranged from 7hrs to 6hrs40min.

That is 11 trains a day vs todays one long distance train by Amtrak that takes around 8hrs and no Twin Cities to Chi only trains. Three long distance trains to the Pacific Northwest, 5 day trains and three overnighters vs one. Is Amtrak, again, just not trying to develop or serve a market or is the 400 mile market dead? You have to just wonder.

 

[Anderson]

I think the 400-mile market is more than workable, and it's been gaining ground over the last few years due to the airline issues; look at the Carolinans, the Cascades, the NEC, and some of the MW and CA lines. However, there are three problems with it:

1) States have to cover the deficits. That's states, plural, which means you're going to get everything from budget fights to interstate relations brought into the picture. Look what the dear Mr. Walker did to the Midwest project, recession or no.

2) Overnighters are a bit of a gamble for Amtrak. Look, if Amtrak was running sleeper/coach trains, dinner and breakfast included, in the 300-500 mile range, I think they could make a hard play in a lot of markets. MSP-CHI isn't the only one that leaps to mind...KCY-CHI is at least arguable, and if they could "seal" the train between Albany and Montreal and run the customs checks in those cities, I think you could probably revive the Montrealer in some form. Similarly, an overnight from Toronto to New York makes sense, but again: You have to set things up so you're not rousing sleeper passengers at 3 AM for a border check, or you're going to get a lot of cranky customers.

3) Amtrak is strapped for equipment. This is the problem across the board: They simply don't have the cars to run everything they "could" or would probably like to. If Santa Claus gave Amtrak 250 new cars and 40 engines for Christmas, there are a lot of routes they could probably have multiple daily trains on. For those New York-Canada trains: Where are the spare viewliners going to come from? If you threw a Toronto-Detroit-Chicago train (the Toronto-Windsor and Detroit-Chicago segments already run) into the mix, where would the spare Superliners come from? And what would the VIA/Amtrak split on fares and whatnot be on those running to Toronto?

Everything comes down to either funding bottlenecks or equipment bottlenecks...and the latter are more of a problem since it takes a long time to get new equipment out.

 

[henryj]

I think the 400-mile market is more than workable, and it's been gaining ground over the last few years due to the airline issues; look at the Carolinans, the Cascades, the NEC, and some of the MW and CA lines.

Everything comes down to either funding bottlenecks or equipment bottlenecks...and the latter are more of a problem since it takes a long time to get new equipment out.

I don't think that is the problem. Amtrak has had at least two long distance trains on this route in the past and pre-Amtrak many more. The problem is I counted almost 50 flights a day at $176 for full fare. That's more than two an hour. Greyhound lists 7 buses a day at full fare of $58. And they do the route faster than Amtrak in some cases. Amtrak's fare is $128 for a once a day train that is unreliable. Amtrak has decided to not serve this market regardless of equipment issues. And even if they did, two or three trains a day is all they could reasonably offer. Plus they have abandoned the downtown stations in Minneapolis and St Paul in favor of the station in the middle of no where. I believe a night train on this route would just be a looser even if the equipment was available. Even though there would be no need for a diner, the sleeper would not earn enough to make it a viable alternative.

For the day trains, you would be tying up two to four sets of equipment that costs many millions of dollars that could only make one one way trip a day. They might be able to make it on this route if they could turn the equipment fast enough to make a round trip each day as the CB&Q used to do.

 

[AlanB]

Henry,

You hit a high bucket fare, the low bucket is $58 for Chicago to MSP.

And Amtrak is still probably marking that up a bit more than they would charge if they were selling seats for a train that didn't go west of MSP.

 

[DET63]

Given what a smashing success the Penn Central was*, should we be seriously entertaining the suggestions of someone called PennCentralFan?

________________________

*Note use of sarcasm here.

 

[Ispolkom]

Henry,

You hit a high bucket fare, the low bucket is $58 for Chicago to MSP.

And Amtrak is still probably marking that up a bit more than they would charge if they were selling seats for a train that didn't go west of MSP.

But he's also quoting high bucket for the airlines. I'm flying from MSP to Chicago Midway round-trip at the end of January for $81 all-in, with free baggage. I'd prefer to take the train, but #8 isn't reliable, and I'm not made of stone.

 

[Anderson]

I think the 400-mile market is more than workable, and it's been gaining ground over the last few years due to the airline issues; look at the Carolinans, the Cascades, the NEC, and some of the MW and CA lines.

Everything comes down to either funding bottlenecks or equipment bottlenecks...and the latter are more of a problem since it takes a long time to get new equipment out.

I don't think that is the problem. Amtrak has had at least two long distance trains on this route in the past and pre-Amtrak many more. The problem is I counted almost 50 flights a day at $176 for full fare. That's more than two an hour. Greyhound lists 7 buses a day at full fare of $58. And they do the route faster than Amtrak in some cases. Amtrak's fare is $128 for a once a day train that is unreliable. Amtrak has decided to not serve this market regardless of equipment issues. And even if they did, two or three trains a day is all they could reasonably offer. Plus they have abandoned the downtown stations in Minneapolis and St Paul in favor of the station in the middle of no where. I believe a night train on this route would just be a looser even if the equipment was available. Even though there would be no need for a diner, the sleeper would not earn enough to make it a viable alternative.

For the day trains, you would be tying up two to four sets of equipment that costs many millions of dollars that could only make one one way trip a day. They might be able to make it on this route if they could turn the equipment fast enough to make a round trip each day as the CB&Q used to do.

Like I said, it's logistics screwing up the markets, not demand. 5-10 years ago, I'd say that you couldn't have made a lot of things work, but they're basically bringing the Three Rivers back as a subset of the Capitol Limited. The market has changed over the last decade. Not fundamentally, but there's been a shift, and I think that reasonably reliable trains on runs up to about 14-16 hours (if they're overnight; you've got substantially lower caps on daylight runs) will sell a fair number of tickets in most markets. I think the Lynchburger shows that...it's one year in and it has the highest per-passenger revenue of any train in America. There are a lot of markets Amtrak could make a good run at if it could get a good schedule working...it's just that you often need 2-3 trains per day in each direction to make people willing to take it (I think the boost on the Piedmont was flexibility-related rather than visibility-related, and such flexibility is often what airlines tout..."X flights per day/week to Y destination").

 

[Trogdor]

Everything comes down to either funding bottlenecks or equipment bottlenecks...and the latter are more of a problem since it takes a long time to get new equipment out.

There's also the issue of track capacity and track access. Freight railroads are putting a high price tag on any new passenger rail service.

 

[Anderson]

Everything comes down to either funding bottlenecks or equipment bottlenecks...and the latter are more of a problem since it takes a long time to get new equipment out.

There's also the issue of track capacity and track access. Freight railroads are putting a high price tag on any new passenger rail service.

Well, we're not even getting to that. I know the freight lines are putting a high tag on new services, but as I understand it, UP is the extreme outlier in terms of giving Amtrak a fit (probably because they've been trying to kill the Sunset Limited for a half-century), and I also believe that a number of states have been helping Amtrak secure rights on those state-subsidized lines that have been responsible for a lot of the growth. But in a number of cases, we're not even getting to that discussion in a lot of places because of logistical hangups in getting to that discussion. If Amtrak doesn't have the cars (or the funding to acquire said cars) to run a route, everything else is superfluous. The stimulus wreck repairs are a quick fix, but even the new batch of replacement Amfleets is nominally not adding to the fleet capacity.*

*Call it a hunch, but I don't think there will end up being a 1:1 new car/retired car ratio. I'm thinking it's going to be closer to 1.25:1 or so, such is the capacity situation on some routes in peak seasons.

 

[PennCentralFan]

A four hundred mile route is perfect for Amtrak. It takes about 6-8 hours to drive and if amtrak can get you there in eight hours people will do it instead of driving and given the headaches of flying I can see more people want to do it and the twin cities to Chicago is a perfect place to do it, but you have to decouple the twice daily trains from the EB. I don't think it's asking too much for folks to get in their sleeper at MSP after taking a train from chi to msp and to get people up in the am to take a train to Chi to finish their journey from the west coast.

The EB as a msp to chi route isn't living up to its potential and can be considered a failure in that regard.

 

[Ispolkom]

The EB as a msp to chi route isn't living up to its potential and can be considered a failure in that regard.

Is that the most important part of the route?

 

[Anderson]

The EB as a msp to chi route isn't living up to its potential and can be considered a failure in that regard.

Is that the most important part of the route?

I think the argument that is being made here is that the route has a substantially higher potential demand that can be tapped into, but just running the Empire Builder on it fails to tap into it. Look at it this way: If you have one time you can leave per day, that puts real limits on your travel from A to B. If you've got two times, that gives you more flexibility. If you have three or four, yet more.

This is why I sometimes end up going to Richmond to catch a train up north: You have 9 trains per day leaving RVR for WAS and NYP. You have two from NPN. With RVR, if I miss a train back, it means that I catch one in an hour or two. With NPN, it means I'm probably spending the night in DC or New York. That's a big difference right there. The same thing is at work on the NC services: Throwing an extra train into the mix gives people another time each way to pick from.

So, to spin back to MSP-CHI: Even if I prefer the train, having one time per day to get on that train is a bit of a barrier when compared to 50 flights. If someone had 2-3 trains per day to choose from, it would make things a lot easier on them...and 7:50 AM-3:55 PM kills a day, no questions asked. If you had a "reversed" option (depart MSP late afternoon, arrive Chicago at night) available, that might help with one leg of the trip. Similarly, an overnight run (say, 8 PM-5 AM with allowed disembarkation until 7:30 AM) each way would be nearly ideal for a lot of travelers. Moreover, being able to choose makes the route more appealing. Obviously, there is a point of diminishing returns, but that's going to depend on the route and the timings.

 

[MikefromCrete]

The Empire Builder is probably Amtrak's best performing long distance train. Chopping off its eastern end and forcing a transfer at Minneapolis-St. Paul makes no sense.

The Builder generally has Amtrak's best long-distance OT performance. It also travels through some of the roughest weather anywhere during the winter. A few weeks of disruption during heavy snow periods is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

A second (or heck, third) train a day between Chicago and the Twin Cities is a very good idea. Good luck with getting Scott Walker to pay for a portion of it.

 

[Anderson]

The Empire Builder is probably Amtrak's best performing long distance train. Chopping off its eastern end and forcing a transfer at Minneapolis-St. Paul makes no sense.

The Builder generally has Amtrak's best long-distance OT performance. It also travels through some of the roughest weather anywhere during the winter. A few weeks of disruption during heavy snow periods is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water.

A second (or heck, third) train a day between Chicago and the Twin Cities is a very good idea. Good luck with getting Scott Walker to pay for a portion of it.

As absurd as it sounds, could a "double" train be put together to run MSP-CHI-KCY or MSP-CHI-Cleveland to avert the "local" train issue? I'd be thinking what amounts to merging another desired rout with this one...regrettably, MSP-CHI-Cincinnati is 12 miles short of the cutoff, MSP-CHI-Detroit is 34 miles short, and MSP-CHI-STL is 31 short (in the case of Cincinnati, the answer might just be to route the train slightly "off" to push it to 751 miles with some sort of slightly inefficient track selection; in the case of Detroit, routing through Toledo would solve the problem). You might make a hash of the timetables here, but a full crew swap in CHI (if not an extended layover of some kind) would solve most associated issues...organize it as one route but treat it as two that happen to exchange trains.

Edit: Actually, I think the KCY-CHI-MSP bundle would work well: 304 leaves KCY at 8:15 AM, gets into STL at 1:55 PM. 314 leaves STL at 3:00 PM, gets into Chicago at 8:40 PM. Join the equipment, back 304's STL departure up somewhat (move 314 by 15 minutes if you need to), and have "324" leave CHI at 9:00 PM for MSP. Coming back, get the "323" into Chicago in time for 303 to head out at 9:25 AM and I think you could make this work, at least on paper. Call this the "Scott Walker Special": It gets a second train on the MSP-CHI routing without having to get him on board. I doubt you'd get much through KCY-MSP traffic, but I wouldn't be surprised if you picked up a marginal amount of STL-MSP business in addition to the CHI-MSP stuff.

Edit 2: To run CIN-CHI-MSP, the following is something I threw together as an exercise:

MSP-CHI-CIN

Depart MSP: 8:00 PM

Arrive CHI: 5:00 AM (detrain until 8:00 AM)

Depart CHI: 9:00 AM

Arrive CIN: 5:30 PM

CIN-CHI-MSP

Depart CIN: 9:00 AM

Arrive CHI: 6:00 PM

Depart CHI: 7:30 PM

Arrive MSP: 5:00 AM (detrain until 7:30 AM)

You get a daylight counterpart to the Cardinal's lousy Cincinnati timings and a nighttime counterpart to the Empire Builder. It's a long distance train, which avoids having to involve state funds, but you can dump some or all of the sleepers in Chicago (and/or exchange them for more coaches). Even with generous Chicago layovers, the train runs about 20 hours, perhaps a bit more (but do remember: Most or all of your OBS sleeper staff are only going to be on the train for the CHI-MSP segment). You'd only need two sleeper sets (perhaps two and a half if you want a through sleeper to Cincinnati). Realistically, you're looking at almost all of your business being to/from CHI, but then again...a lot of Acela traffic exchanges in NYC even though the train runs through.

 

[AlanB]

A four hundred mile route is perfect for Amtrak. It takes about 6-8 hours to drive and if amtrak can get you there in eight hours people will do it instead of driving and given the headaches of flying I can see more people want to do it and the twin cities to Chicago is a perfect place to do it, but you have to decouple the twice daily trains from the EB. I don't think it's asking too much for folks to get in their sleeper at MSP after taking a train from chi to msp and to get people up in the am to take a train to Chi to finish their journey from the west coast.

The EB as a msp to chi route isn't living up to its potential and can be considered a failure in that regard.

But the problem is, that it is asking too much of the folks to change trains in MSP. It wouldn't surprise me to find that you lose 1/4th to 1/5th of the ridership west of MSP if you force that change. And that's for both coach & sleeper. People don't like to change trains! They want a one seat ride.

The answer here isn't to kill a major revenue source for the EB, the answer is to figure out how to run one or more separate round trips between CHI & MSP that are independent of the EB. Whether or not the EB keeps the MSP only coach would and could be debated based upon ridership trends.

But in no uncertain terms should the EB ever be truncated to MSP, unless you want to have zero train service at MSP in the future. Especially since your plan as described would mean that either Wisconsin or Minnesota or both working together, would have to pay for that short haul train. I don't see either state putting up money for a separate train at all; be it a replacement for the EB as you want or in addition to the EB.

 

[AlanB]

As absurd as it sounds, could a "double" train be put together to run MSP-CHI-KCY or MSP-CHI-Cleveland to avert the "local" train issue? I'd be thinking what amounts to merging another desired rout with this one...regrettably, MSP-CHI-Cincinnati is 12 miles short of the cutoff, MSP-CHI-Detroit is 34 miles short, and MSP-CHI-STL is 31 short (in the case of Cincinnati, the answer might just be to route the train slightly "off" to push it to 751 miles with some sort of slightly inefficient track selection; in the case of Detroit, routing through Toledo would solve the problem). You might make a hash of the timetables here, but a full crew swap in CHI (if not an extended layover of some kind) would solve most associated issues...organize it as one route but treat it as two that happen to exchange trains.

Edit: Actually, I think the KCY-CHI-MSP bundle would work well: 304 leaves KCY at 8:15 AM, gets into STL at 1:55 PM. 314 leaves STL at 3:00 PM, gets into Chicago at 8:40 PM. Join the equipment, back 304's STL departure up somewhat (move 314 by 15 minutes if you need to), and have "324" leave CHI at 9:00 PM for MSP. Coming back, get the "323" into Chicago in time for 303 to head out at 9:25 AM and I think you could make this work, at least on paper. Call this the "Scott Walker Special": It gets a second train on the MSP-CHI routing without having to get him on board. I doubt you'd get much through KCY-MSP traffic, but I wouldn't be surprised if you picked up a marginal amount of STL-MSP business in addition to the CHI-MSP stuff.

Edit 2: To run CIN-CHI-MSP, the following is something I threw together as an exercise:

MSP-CHI-CIN

Depart MSP: 8:00 PM

Arrive CHI: 5:00 AM (detrain until 8:00 AM)

Depart CHI: 9:00 AM

Arrive CIN: 5:30 PM

CIN-CHI-MSP

Depart CIN: 9:00 AM

Arrive CHI: 6:00 PM

Depart CHI: 7:30 PM

Arrive MSP: 5:00 AM (detrain until 7:30 AM)

You get a daylight counterpart to the Cardinal's lousy Cincinnati timings and a nighttime counterpart to the Empire Builder. It's a long distance train, which avoids having to involve state funds, but you can dump some or all of the sleepers in Chicago (and/or exchange them for more coaches). Even with generous Chicago layovers, the train runs about 20 hours, perhaps a bit more (but do remember: Most or all of your OBS sleeper staff are only going to be on the train for the CHI-MSP segment). You'd only need two sleeper sets (perhaps two and a half if you want a through sleeper to Cincinnati). Realistically, you're looking at almost all of your business being to/from CHI, but then again...a lot of Acela traffic exchanges in NYC even though the train runs through.

An interesting idea, but I do see a few problems. First, you'd have to establish yards to work on the cars in both places, as you would be unable to service the cars in Chicago now. Second, Chicago Union Station (CUS) only has one track that is both passenger acessible and runs through the station. All other tracks at CUS either don't run through the station north to south, or don't have passenger access. And that track is already heavily used with equipment moves and by the Empire Builder.

And then there is the issue that Amtrak is still probably not going to want to take on a train that is unlikely to cover its costs. Especially in a circumstance like this where they're doing so just to skate around an rule that says that they have to charge the states for the service. Amtrak's already under the gun to do better financially; I don't see them wanting to take on the expense of what would and should really be two separate trains where the states pick up any loses.

 

[Anderson]

Alan,

I agree with you in general. This did get me to thinking about ways to use this to maintain services that might get cut when the 2/3 rule kicks in (in this case, we'd be talking about pairing extant services and getting the states to maintain the current subsidy levels), but in those cases, I think the shenanigans would be justified if the alternative is more or less a service collapse in some areas. Let's face it: Some states aren't going to cut the check for some routes, and I think history has shown that cutting routes too badly leads to knock-on effects. In the case of the CHI-MSP trick, I'm not sure how the revenue would compare to the accrued costs...as I noted, you'd probably get at least some through business out of the deal in any of these events, and the idea of running through cars in Chicago (even just on the south side of the station) to KCY and STL probably isn't a bad one if you've got trains that would link well (case in point: There used to be CHI-DET overnight trains, and CHI-KCY is probably long enough for one). I would also suggest that

Serious question: Is there a yard in KCY? I know some of the STL-KCY trains never see Chicago, but doing car exchanges to get the cars into CHI would make sense. Of course, you could do the same thing here: Switch different cars for different cars in CHI when you need to do maintenance. Yes, it would resemble a very strange card game and require a bit of planning ahead to make swaps work, but assuming that you wanted to do some sort of exchange (namely, sleepers for coaches), you'd just "deal out" different coaches each time the train comes through town.

Also, in CUS, couldn't you theoretically "dock" a train on one side of the station to offload passengers, move it through one of the not-passenger-accessible tracks, and then "re-dock" it on the other side? Not logistically pretty, but if you're talking about the train having a few hours in CHI, you could run this easily enough (if the train gets in at 5:00, give people until 5:30 to detrain and then plan on 45 minutes to move the train around, and the train is relocated by 6:30 even if you run behind...or just declare the arrival time to be 6:00 AM and move the train around the yard as it comes in).