The Pioneer route back in the news

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Something to bear in mind is that on that (infamous) Amtrak corridor map there were, IIRC, two "corridors" of Boise-Portland/Seattle(?) and Boise-Salt Lake City on the map.
 
Then why would Amtrak miss a deadline for comment on this group plan. How hard is it to say: Yes we would be interested in working with the state involved for this project.

I have no clue what Amtrak management is thinking. Going to have to stick with the conspiracy theories. Nothing left.
 
I think that if the route is going to be viable, it has to connect to the national system on the eastern end: Salt Lake City.
 
Then why would Amtrak miss a deadline for comment on this group plan. How hard is it to say: Yes we would be interested in working with the state involved for this project.

I have no clue what Amtrak management is thinking. Going to have to stick with the conspiracy theories. Nothing left.
It is entirely possible that the call was made at a bad hour (e.g. they call up Amtrak at 1600 their time and it is 1800 in DC and everyone's gone home) or otherwise the paper wasn't trying very hard to get the comment.
 
It is entirely possible that the call was made at a bad hour (e.g. they call up Amtrak at 1600 their time and it is 1800 in DC and everyone's gone home) or otherwise the paper wasn't trying very hard to get the comment.
This is most likely the reason. Journalists today are notoriously lazy (and often sloppy to boot) when it comes to sourcing stories and dealing with real world situations. They think because they are "on deadline" that the rest of the world needs to stop for them and "did not respond to an inquiry" means "no comment" or "get lost".

I've noticed some are being a bit more honest by saying "we did not receive a response by press time/broadcast time" but even that tends to be weaselly if you're not allowing enough time to respond.

Many are also quite young (often twentysomethings) and can't wrap their brains around the concept that the press person can't give an answer off the top of their head, but often must consult with someone in the company who has the answers. That often takes time.
 
Journalists today are notoriously lazy (and often sloppy to boot) when it comes to sourcing stories and dealing with real world situations. They think because they are "on deadline" that the rest of the world needs to stop for them and "did not respond to an inquiry" means "no comment" or "get lost". I've noticed some are being a bit more honest by saying "we did not receive a response by press time/broadcast time" but even that tends to be weaselly if you're not allowing enough time to respond. Many are also quite young (often twentysomethings) and can't wrap their brains around the concept that the press person can't give an answer off the top of their head, but often must consult with someone in the company who has the answers. That often takes time.
Newsroom staff who previously chased statements and leads have been cut to the bone and the few actual journalists who remain today are notoriously overworked and underpaid. Readers today are perfectly happy to receive most of their "news" from rarely researched and often manipulative social media posts. The combination of lazy readers and overworked journalists has created a vicious cycle that sees more people abandon legitimate news sources which forces more layoffs that result in lower quality news which leaves more readers disinterested and so on.

I've noticed that it takes a very long time to get Amtrak to respond to my own questions and comments, and even when they do it's usually in the form of meaningless boilerplate gibberish that has little if anything to do with the original inquiry. I therefore find it reasonably believable that Amtrak's opaque administration either didn't receive the message or simply chose to ignore it rather than attempt to explain whatever their position might be and how that would fit into anything else they've said or done.

Detail oriented "by the book" journalism was replaced with "if it bleeds it leads" and "whoever lies the most or shouts the loudest wins" back when news departments were moved under the entertainment divisions of national media companies. What we're seeing today is simply the tail end of a sea change that began decades before today's younger journalists were born. Those who travel regularly will eventually notice that similar stories are told in the same manner and with the same angle from city to city and station to station all over the country. This isn't by accident and it's only possible because we changed the law to allow a tiny number of conglomerates to own and influence the local and regional news for thousands of cities and towns.
 
Last edited:
I think that if the route is going to be viable, it has to connect to the national system on the eastern end: Salt Lake City.

I agree, and it sure would be nice to have one of the large former stations available to service such a train. Salt Lake City really messed up when they rerouted the tracks to the current configuration. The former Rio Grande stations should have been utilized to handle all of the passenger rail. That station would have improved accessibility and every bit of the train experience.
 
I think that if the route is going to be viable, it has to connect to the national system on the eastern end: Salt Lake City.

So connecting to the national system in Portland isn’t enough? Why not. Obviously a line to Salt Lake would be good.... but it seems you could start with one or the other and plan to expand.
 
So connecting to the national system in Portland isn’t enough? Why not. Obviously a line to Salt Lake would be good.... but it seems you could start with one or the other and plan to expand.
That depends on how one defines the term "connection". If by that you mean "two trains which serve the same station" then yes, it achieves that. However, if you mean "two trains which serve the same station in such a way as to allow reasonable same-day connections" then...er...not so much. In 1995, Boise-Portland was just over an 11-hour run (timetabling a 10-hour clock difference WB and 12-hour difference EB due to the timezone situation). To make both connections to the SB Starlight and EB Builder on the presumption of a 60-minute guaranteed connection you'd have to leave Boise in the middle of the night (the EB Builder leaves Portland at 1645; the SB Starlight at 1445; backing up from these you would end up with a departure at 0545 to make the Builder, which I suspect could be ameliorated with a bus bridge; the Starlight, on the other hand...). I'd also suggest that a stub-end coach train departing in the middle of the night is not a success story waiting to happen.

On the other hand, you might be able to beat out a connection with 501 and 508: 508 seems to leave late enough that you could depart around 0800 and still comfortably make it, though an 1130 departure from 501 would get stung by the time change swinging against it (even if you slash the connection time).

Now, if you're talking multiple trains on this route? Maybe you could swing something, but...honestly, this goes back to a case for being better off pitching the corridors with multiple daily trains on the existing LD routes.
 
I agree, and it sure would be nice to have one of the large former stations available to service such a train. Salt Lake City really messed up when they rerouted the tracks to the current configuration. The former Rio Grande stations should have been utilized to handle all of the passenger rail. That station would have improved accessibility and every bit of the train experience.
The former Rio Grande station was equipped with enough platform tracks to handle all the Amtrak trains plus an off-schedule train or an extension of the Desert Wind to the Idaho/Wyoming tourist magnets. SLC was truly the "Crossroads of the West" at one time.

The best site, of course, was the UP station, which is close to downtown and has LRT service without a transfer to the airport. It was used by the original SEA-PDX-BOI-SLC Pioneer. SLC's mayor admitted during a visit to Denver that it was a mistake to have encouraged conversion of it to a shopping mall.

SLC099.jpg
 
A few add-ons. The Willamette Valley schedules of the Cascades and their complementary Thruway bus service evolved from the desire to have connections with Trains 25/26. The idea of ending at Boise is that the federal government isn't interested in a national network, but that the people along the line want reliable, bread-and-butter access to universities, government services, etc. Some have imagined Talgoes on such a route. When Amtrak most recently "studied" this line they assumed through operation of non-existent Superliners to Chicago. That seemed to be a backstop in case their proposed 14-hour layover in SLC or the acceptance of UP's first draft of capital projects failed to discourage advocates.

I've posted the link to my YouTube videos done for that study before. The PowerPoint slides are available at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/135141530@N04/albums/72157668130775833 .

35A.jpg
In 2008 Amtrak's Boise waiting room was still ready to use.
 
So connecting to the national system in Portland isn’t enough? Why not. Obviously a line to Salt Lake would be good.... but it seems you could start with one or the other and plan to expand.
The Heartland Flyer is an interesting comparison, being connected at only the one end. Discussion about extensions and connections to the north have been ongoing almost since its inception.
 
The former Rio Grande station was equipped with enough platform tracks to handle all the Amtrak trains plus an off-schedule train or an extension of the Desert Wind to the Idaho/Wyoming tourist magnets. SLC was truly the "Crossroads of the West" at one time.

The best site, of course, was the UP station, which is close to downtown and has LRT service without a transfer to the airport. It was used by the original SEA-PDX-BOI-SLC Pioneer. SLC's mayor admitted during a visit to Denver that it was a mistake to have encouraged conversion of it to a shopping mall.

View attachment 15382

The other benefit of course would have been the ability to run the Front Runner commuter trains that much closer to downtown in addition to the Trax trains that you mentioned going to the airport.

My thoughts are also that currently the Rio Grande station could be reopened in this capacity (Sadly the UP station is pretty much lost with the mall situation). Redoing 500W for either full rail service or street-running is still possible (the formerly used tracks still run under I-15). It would require the local government to admit a major oops and a willingness to correct it, but shifting service would be make a pretty major improvement to all of the affected services and riders. The current Amtrak shack is pretty pathetic, but at least it’s a manned station.
 
Then why would Amtrak miss a deadline for comment on this group plan. How hard is it to say: Yes we would be interested in working with the state involved for this project.

I have no clue what Amtrak management is thinking. Going to have to stick with the conspiracy theories. Nothing left.
Touche.

Does it not seem obvious that Anderson does not really have Amtrak's best interest at heart? It "seems" as if he is actually trying to dismantle it, but then, we are the conspiracy theorists..:rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
Actually a Talgo might be the set you want to run on the BOI-PDX run just because of its topography. The line hugs the shore of the Columbia River and is plagued with curves. A Talgo in theory could cut some time out of the timetable. If only there were two more Talgo trainsets somewhere ;)
 
The best site, of course, was the UP station, which is close to downtown and has LRT service without a transfer to the airport. It was used by the original SEA-PDX-BOI-SLC Pioneer.
View attachment 15382

Best site for access to downtown, yes; best rails to reach it, no. It was used by all 3 trains until 1987. Getting in and out was a tortuous zigzag affair that included backing out of the station and down the middle of Rio Grande Street - seeing the street side of the Rio Grande station out the window of the CZ. Operationally it was a big improvement to move to the Rio Grande station for the CZ, and did no real harm to the Pioneer or Desert Wind.

It occurs to me, in retrospect, that until 1983 there had never been any need for a passenger train to try to get from the D&RGW line to the UP station, and quite possibly the shift to the other station was in the works as soon the CZ was rerouted, but took a few years to happen.
 
Best site for access to downtown, yes; best rails to reach it, no. It was used by all 3 trains until 1987. Getting in and out was a tortuous zigzag affair that included backing out of the station and down the middle of Rio Grande Street - seeing the street side of the Rio Grande station out the window of the CZ. Operationally it was a big improvement to move to the Rio Grande station for the CZ, and did no real harm to the Pioneer or Desert Wind.

It occurs to me, in retrospect, that until 1983 there had never been any need for a passenger train to try to get from the D&RGW line to the UP station, and quite possibly the shift to the other station was in the works as soon the CZ was rerouted, but took a few years to happen.
Yup. The move the Rio Grande station was part of the plan to move the Zephyr to the Moffatt Line. There was no intention to keep it at the UP station with the changeover to Rio Grande.

At this point the best thing that could happen is that a proper Amtrak station building is constructed as was originally planned at the current site. AFAICT no one, not the city and not the railroads - Commuter and UP, will agree to relay tracks to the old UP station location. Just won't happen.
 
Back
Top