"Heritage" Stations Available for Amtrak Use

shadyjay wrote:

Station Aficionado wrote:

shadyjay wrote:Throughout Vermont, all heritage stations at existing stops are utilized, except the Windsor-Ascutney (restaurant) and Randolph (gift shop?) stops. Both have low ridership and are basically "flag stops". Plus, the "heritage" building is already in use for another purpose.

Do you know what the situation is at Brattleboro? Are they still planning on building a new station across the tracks from the current location (basement of old station, which is now a museum or art gallery)? My recollection is that the city was involved in protracted negotiations (or maybe litigation) with the property owner.

I haven't heard anything for Brattleboro in quite a while... back in the mid/late 1990s there was a report in "Rumourpace" about a new station and how construction was to start "at any time now". Since then, I've heard nothing. Personally, I think a better idea would be to build a new station north of the present one. A station stop at the present station snarls traffic at the busy US 5/VT 119/VT 142 intersection right in downtown and backs traffic up into NH. There's also usually a crew change for the engineer I believe that is just north of the station, so the SB will pause briefly before the station, then enter the station, do the work there, then continue on, all the while traffic is backed up on both sides of the river. Not to mention, parking at Brattleboro is a narrow strip between the station building and the tracks.

The ideal location for a new station in Brattleboro would have adequate parking, an enclosed building, and not on any crossing circuits. Since there is a bank between US 5 and the tracks and the Connecticut River north of the station, no ideal location exists in that immediate area. But a station just north of downtown may work, somewhere near the West River perhaps. And get the interstate bus service to stop there as well, and you have an intermodal station. I know this involves Amtrak leaving a "heritage" station, but its only a basement usage at present and the benefits would outweigh the negatives.

Gee wiz, a problem at Brattleboro with two trains (one northbound and one southbound) stopping at a good downtown
location. I guess this might interfere with traffic crossing the river to Walmart. I shed no tears for this one. You should
have been around when there were 12 plus passenger trains stopping at this location at all hours of the day and night and
in addition 4 or 5 through freight trains in each direction daily, locals and switchers were also working in this area too.
I remember Brattleboro when it was very busy with trains day and night, I wish it was still busy but it is not going to happen.
Noel Weaver

Does Oregon City count:

http://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-city/i ... ation.html

http://djcoregon.com/news/2010/05/05/hi ... y-station/

mtuandrew wrote:Chicago is already using its heritage depots for Amtrak and other service

All the Amtrak and Metra terminals in Chicago have been demolished and replaced over the last 40 years. The only remaining "heritage" would be the Great Hall building at CUS (oft considered a white elephant for Amtrak and the city) and the building that was once Dearborn.

Ramsey County has approved a contract that will re-convert St Paul Union Depot into a train station: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... :_Yyc:aUUT
Completion date late 2012.

Zanperk wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:Chicago is already using its heritage depots for Amtrak and other service

All the Amtrak and Metra terminals in Chicago have been demolished and replaced over the last 40 years. The only remaining "heritage" would be the Great Hall building at CUS (oft considered a white elephant for Amtrak and the city) and the building that was once Dearborn.

Mea culpa - I'd forgotten that there wasn't much of anything left of LaSalle, Randolph pre-Millenium, or Northwestern, forgot that Dearborn was standing, and had misunderstood how much of Union Depot was original. I don't get to Chicago nearly enough

Station Aficionado wrote:Ramsey County has approved a contract that will re-convert St Paul Union Depot into a train station: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... :_Yyc:aUUT
Completion date late 2012.

About time!

Station Aficionado wrote:Ramsey County has approved a contract that will re-convert St Paul Union Depot into a train station: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... :_Yyc:aUUT
Completion date late 2012.

Well, that's a nice way to blow over $150 million!

It's a mystery how this will actually improve passenger service.

I think the general "take away" from this discussion looks to be:

1) Limited Amtrak service (two trains a day, typically) can't support a big, manned station

2) There needs to be some additional commercial activity (buses, commuter trains, shops, a restaurant) to share the cost if "heritage" stations are to be successfully re-used

I live in the NEC, where we've seen successful redevelopment of a number of stations (several of which are Amtrak's busiest). 30th Street in my hometown was nicely restored a few years ago, and of course everybody knows of Washington Union Station (my only complaint is that they really didn't leave enough room for the trains and passengers), although the shopping mall looks to be having a tough time these days -- more and more empty stores.

But some of the smaller stations have also been nicely redone -- Baltimore and New Haven, for example -- and at Trenton and Providence there are new station buildings. Of course, the NEC has the passenger traffic to support the same sorts of amenities one expects at airports: restaurants, car rentals, shops,

Moving off the NEC, Richmond's Main Street has been nicely re-done, and may yet end up as the main Richmond station (that horrible little thing at Staples Mill Road should be demolished). Lynchburg Kemper Street looks to be in good shape. Charlottesville now has a restaurant in it; under Amtrak, it was literally falling down,. Roanoke's station is the Winston Link Museum, but should trains ever return, they've left space for them. At Raleigh, the old Southern station was a steak house but is once again fully dedicated to passenger trains. Greensboro has been beautifully restored and re-opened. So has Salisbury, both stations thanks to the very successful North Carolina high speed program. Charlotte needs a decent station, though.

West of the NEC, Pittsburgh's station is now a condo, with passengers accommodated in what looks to have been the baggage room. Cleveland has already been mentioned -- they need to move back into CUT. There's no space to store equipment, and no place to service trains, not even a water plug.

Toledo's NYC station looks fairly intact; I haven't been there to check it out, just passed through. Chicago has been mentioned. West of there is mostly out of my territory, although I was in Denver recently and they've left the station "stranded" with the tracks to the south cut off by redevelopment. So much for ever running commuter trains out of there!

I'd like to see Amtrak back in Jacksonville Union Terminal; they should just tear down that station way out on US 1 (it's further from town than the airport!). Maybe if they ever start up that train on the FEC...

Bottom line: to support proper stations, you need patronage. Many of the problems with Amtrak (like not being able to get a rental car) would be fixed if more people rode trains. Until then, we'll have to recruit restaurants and other commercial uses to support decent facilities for a handful of riders on one train a day, which is the reality of Amtrak service in most of the US.

West of there is mostly out of my territory, although I was in Denver recently and they've left the station "stranded" with the tracks to the south cut off by redevelopment. So much for ever running commuter trains out of there!

I've only been by that station once, as a street-side pedestrian on my way to Coors Field. However, I believe that it's always been designed as a terminal station. The reinvention plan here (the 2008 Supplement is, I think, the most-recent version) mentions discontinuance of the two "stub" tracks that continued south of the station, but that all the heavy-rail trains would be coming in from the north. But it definitely calls for commuter rail and Amtrak serviced from the heritage station (sort of), with a light rail terminal connected a short distance away.

wilwel1024 wrote:Cleveland Union Terminal has been modified some to create Tower City. However the right of way is largely in tact. "The Rapid" still uses the traction concourse. However, the west approach has been narrowed by the construction of the federal courthouse and by construction of the junction for the lake front line. The addition to parking decks to much of the old steam concourse. These modifications are not insurmountable given the will and financing to make the necessary changes.

Benefits would include location closer to the central business district than the proposed lake front station. The office complex and hotel that the Van Sweringen brothers built are still in use. The mall is underperforming as a mall and the former Higbee's Department Store building is available for renovation. I hope that Ohio's 3-C corridor would use part of CUT instead of a new lakefront station.

The reason why the lakefront station is used is because Cleveland Union Terminal is out of the way in regards to passenger rail service. The Van Sweringens were smart in building and improving downtown Cleveland ( especially in regard to the hotel, office complex, and station ), and I could feasibly see that building serving as part of a heavy rail mass transit system. However for long distance train service it's easier and quicker to use the lakefront route and station, which is on a direct route served by existing passenger services.

You also have to remember the Lakefront route has been used since the middle 1800's and was the first proposed site for a Union Terminal in Cleveland. O.P. and M.J. Van Sweringen were pivotal in choosing a different location, located in the central business district. Most of the Class I's routed opted to continue using the existing depot on the lakefront route ( although a few utilized CUT ).

markhb wrote:

West of there is mostly out of my territory, although I was in Denver recently and they've left the station "stranded" with the tracks to the south cut off by redevelopment. So much for ever running commuter trains out of there!

I've only been by that station once, as a street-side pedestrian on my way to Coors Field. However, I believe that it's always been designed as a terminal station. The reinvention plan here (the 2008 Supplement is, I think, the most-recent version) mentions discontinuance of the two "stub" tracks that continued south of the station, but that all the heavy-rail trains would be coming in from the north. But it definitely calls for commuter rail and Amtrak serviced from the heritage station (sort of), with a light rail terminal connected a short distance away.

It's been several years since I was in the Denver station. When I was there in 2006, it looked like there was still a path through which the stub tracks could be reconnected to the mainline headed south. I haven't kept up with all the changes in the redevelopment plans--I think at one time there was a plan to put the tracks to the south in an underground tunnel. If they are now not to be reconnected, that would be a serious impediment for the advocates of El Paso-Albuquerque-Denver service (wouldn't hold my breath on that one even it the tracks were already connected).

NellieBly wrote:I think the general "take away" from this discussion looks to be:

1) Limited Amtrak service (two trains a day, typically) can't support a big, manned station

2) There needs to be some additional commercial activity (buses, commuter trains, shops, a restaurant) to share the cost if "heritage" stations are to be successfully re-used

Here's a question: in stations where Amtrak does not have an agent, but there are other tenants, can Amtrak make arrangements with the other tenants to sell tickets for Amtrak? IIRC, that sometimes happens where there's an agent for a commuter train operation, but does it happen with other types of tenants? I can see where it might not work with a restaurant, but what about a travel agency, a chamber of commerce or a local government agency?

I read an article a while back about Ashland, Kentucky. The station there is used by both Amtrak (the Cardinal) and an intercity bus operator (don't remember which one). The building also houses, I believe, the local chamber of commerce. The bus operator decided it might improve business to have ticket sales at the station. Rather than put an agent there, they made arrangements for the CoC to sell tickets. The story said that Amtrak had never contacted them about selling tickets (no Quick Trak there). I wonder why not? While I can see not trusting the CoC with the full range of ticketing services, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to have them sell one-way or round trip tickets to and from Ashland on the Cardinal.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

Station Aficionado wrote:Ramsey County has approved a contract that will re-convert St Paul Union Depot into a train station: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... :_Yyc:aUUT
Completion date late 2012.

Well, that's a nice way to blow over $150 million!

It's a mystery how this will actually improve passenger service.

No mystery at all. Midway station is a brain-meltingly awful location in a dreadful industrial neighborhood. It's such an awful location that even though they're building a light rail line right past it, it won't stop nearer than something like 10 blocks away.

Moving the station to downtown St. Paul within blocks of the State Capitol, with a light rail line stopping in front of it, *is* an improvement in passenger service. Anyway they're planning for a bunch of commuter lines and they need a St. Paul station for them, too.

(Edit) Despite having only one train per day each way, Midway's really busy and required quite a large building (a strange sort of "giant Amshack") and multiple staff members. I guess that's due to being the only station for a genuinely large metropolitan area.

neroden wrote:No mystery at all. Midway station is a brain-meltingly awful location in a dreadful industrial neighborhood. It's such an awful location that even though they're building a light rail line right past it, it won't stop nearer than something like 10 blocks away.

Moving the station to downtown St. Paul within blocks of the State Capitol, with a light rail line stopping in front of it, *is* an improvement in passenger service. Anyway they're planning for a bunch of commuter lines and they need a St. Paul station for them, too.

(Edit) Despite having only one train per day each way, Midway's really busy and required quite a large building (a strange sort of "giant Amshack") and multiple staff members. I guess that's due to being the only station for a genuinely large metropolitan area.

The main benefit I can imagine at the current location is that it's directly on the Minnesota Commercial Railway, who can easily handle switching. Otherwise, Midway isn't near any attractions, it's not really on a major highway, public transit is a hike, and the MNNR can just as easily switch cars at Union Depot. I honestly think it's kind of a cool building in a seventies way, and not too inadequate size-wise, but the location is terrible unless you're a railfan.

As for the SuperAmshack, another reason it was so large was the fact that the area was served by two other trains when Midway opened - the Arrowhead (later North Star) and the North Coast Hiawatha, though the latter would shortly perish.

neroden wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

Station Aficionado wrote:Ramsey County has approved a contract that will re-convert St Paul Union Depot into a train station: http://www.startribune.com/local/stpaul ... :_Yyc:aUUT
Completion date late 2012.

Well, that's a nice way to blow over $150 million!

It's a mystery how this will actually improve passenger service.

No mystery at all. Midway station is a brain-meltingly awful location in a dreadful industrial neighborhood. It's such an awful location that even though they're building a light rail line right past it, it won't stop nearer than something like 10 blocks away.

Moving the station to downtown St. Paul within blocks of the State Capitol, with a light rail line stopping in front of it, *is* an improvement in passenger service. Anyway they're planning for a bunch of commuter lines and they need a St. Paul station for them, too.

(Edit) Despite having only one train per day each way, Midway's really busy and required quite a large building (a strange sort of "giant Amshack") and multiple staff members. I guess that's due to being the only station for a genuinely large metropolitan area.

Are they considering building a new station in downtown Minneapolis as well, or will long-distance travellers have to go to Saint Paul to catch a train?

Minneapolis probably won't receive an Amtrak station, though if Amtrak ever did route a train through Willmar, MN, there's a good chance they'd stop at Ballpark Station right underneath Target Field. Otherwise, there's not a good place to put a train station on active rail that's near downtown. For travelers bound for Minneapolis, the Central Corridor light rail is supposed to be completed in the next few years and will go from St. Paul Union Depot to Minneapolis Ballpark Station. Eventually (hopefully) commuter rail will connect the two cities as well.