Sunset Limited and Pioneer route studies

Vincent wrote:The Pioneer isn't high on my list of 21st Century passenger rail priorities, but it would be a beautiful trip that I surely would want to make once or twice in my lifetime, so if somebody wants to step up and pay for the service, I'll be glad to ride it. But there are more important priorities.

Much as the NARP disciples emboldended with their "Vision" around here disagree, Mr. Vincent is quite on mark with his assessment; The Pioneer is simply not what 21st century passenger railroading is all about.

Even in view of it serving the fastest growing region in the USA, the existing Sunset is also hardly "what it's all about". While I'd like to think that my admittedly fascetious "Four a day Houston-LA" might generate more passengers per train mile that does the existing Sunset, such would represent en expropriation of a hopefully again busy investor owned Class I road.

(disclaimer: author holds position in UNP)

I've got to admit, I've never understood why the "eastern" section of the Sunset Limited doesn't do well. It would strike me as more population centers to go through and more potential customers, even if many are only short haul.

One a day is a vitamin, not a viable solution to a transportation need. That's why.

One day Amtrak uses it to explain in a financial report why ridership is severely curtailed on the Sunset Limited, then it says a couple years later, it doesn't need the eastern leg. What was the original argument Claytor put forth to get the "eastern leg" of the Sunset Limited in place? The Sunset Limited's consist during the early years when it was extended to Orlando were quite lengthy, compared to what it is now. I mean the explanations for operation of the "eastern" section of the Sunset Limited seems to blow in the wind!

When the Sunset used to terminate in New Orleans, it also used to interchange at least a sleeper with the Crescent. Course that was off and on until the Superliners or Hi-Level cars really took over the Sunset Limited route and Amtrak didn't have a "transition car" expendable to put on the back of the Sunset Limited to handle a single level sleeper from the Crescent. The whole New Orleans market/region has had its ups and downs with the City of New Orleans, Crescent, Sunset Limited, Gulf Wind/Breeze etc.

Vincent wrote:I don't think the reports are either pessimistic or optimistic, they're just a response to a Congressional mandate. URPA consistently seems to think that there are millions of people just waiting to jump on a fleet on refurbished equipment and ride for two days on a train when a 737 can make the same trip in 5 hours. I don't know if Amtrak's ridership projections are completely accurate but I definitely think that URPA's are from "outer space".

It should be noted that Southwest Airlines started service in the Pacific Northwest when it acquired Morris Air in 1994. Coupled with Horizon's domination of the regional service, add the effort by SkyWest and a few one-off players (like the current player, SkyPort Airlines) - the competition is much greater now than ever before. It is this competition that has actually forced Greyhound to also scale back much of its Pacific Northwest services and today Greyhound is a shell of what it was prior to 2004.

Vincent makes a good point - if we are to look at equipment as the question, what would make you feel more secure - riding in restored 1970s era worn out, hand-me-down railroad equipment, or a practically brand new Boeing 737-700 (that, by the way, I should add was built locally in Seattle!!) or Bombardier Q-400? Horizon's already proven that people don't mind flying turboprops anymore and has largely disposed of its CRJ-700 fleet (save for a few unsellable frames which are now in Portland-California service where demand didn't warrant an Alaska 737).

Portland-Boise (the next significant population center) is some 8-10 hours away by train. Ouch. It's barely a one hour flight - for the high tech companies who have operations in both cities (Hewlett Packard, Micron) and the agricultural companies in Boise who must do business in Portland - the train is simply not an option. They can take a morning flight out of Boise, be in Portland or Seattle within two to three hours (leave at 6:00 AM, arrive at 9:00 AM) and still be home for dinner that evening. By train that one day trip has become a three day adventure. The population along the route is scarce - Pendleton has just over 17,000 folks, Hermiston, the second largest city along the route (and it's still several miles off the UP mainline) has 16,000 folks, The Dalles comes in at 13,200 and La Grande has 13,000 citizens. Hood River is at less than 7,000, and I'm guessing Amtrak is not going to stop for Arlington's 610 residents or the 275 residents of Rufus, or the 1,050 residents of Cascade Locks or the 3,330 residents of Boardman - considering that none of those communities received Amtrak service before despite a lack of any other transportation resource to the nearest larger community (so much for "essential transportation service" when Amtrak blows by at 79.)

Keep in mind - Greyhound does still serve the run. Certainly not the most enjoyable service, but it is there. What are we really trying to accomplish - if it's to provide a service, why aren't we simply increasing Greyhound or making Greyhound more accessible? The real agenda is not that - it's to put a train there for the sake of running a train with no regards to what people actually want or need. The result is running empty trains to the middle of nowhere, while people who are waiting for a train can't get one (because the other trains are overcrowded).

Let me asK: who flies from Hood River to--let's say--Nampa or Pocatello? I think alot of the argument is based on the end-point to end-point mentality. Air serves that well; they don't do well serving intermediate points, and that is where ground transportation is a plus.

jp1822 wrote:One day Amtrak uses it to explain in a financial report why ridership is severely curtailed on the Sunset Limited, then it says a couple years later, it doesn't need the eastern leg. What was the original argument Claytor put forth to get the "eastern leg" of the Sunset Limited in place? The Sunset Limited's consist during the early years when it was extended to Orlando were quite lengthy, compared to what it is now. I mean the explanations for operation of the "eastern" section of the Sunset Limited seems to blow in the wind!

When the Sunset used to terminate in New Orleans, it also used to interchange at least a sleeper with the Crescent. Course that was off and on until the Superliners or Hi-Level cars really took over the Sunset Limited route and Amtrak didn't have a "transition car" expendable to put on the back of the Sunset Limited to handle a single level sleeper from the Crescent. The whole New Orleans market/region has had its ups and downs with the City of New Orleans, Crescent, Sunset Limited, Gulf Wind/Breeze etc.

I forget when New Orleans may have been home to a World's Fair or such event in the 1980's. SP#4449 made a special trip, perhaps a UP engine. I don't know about NS when they had a pair of N&W steamers.
For a time Amtrak operated special service to the fair. Lack of state money to support the trains may be another factor.
In L&N times, the Gulf Wind connected New Orleans with Mobile & other gulf cities. The eastern leg of the Sunset was an effort to replace this service. There may have also been a plan to link the west coast with the east cost. There are several problems with this plan.
1) The Amtrak wreck near Mobile was costly in passengers & equipment. I'm not sure if all the issues have finally been resolved.
2) The train is much slower than I-10, I-75, I-95. Flights from the midwest blanket the Florida tourist market.

It seems there must be a full train with diner , sleepers and obs , or no train .
To my mind , the first step in restoring service is a thruway bus service . then perhaps a budd railcar type service . then if demand warrants it , a full service train .
You may ask , who is going to ride more than 12 hours in such a service ??? . probably not many , but as has been pointed out , Portland - Denver / saltlakecity does not NEED extra service , and few will ride the whole way . But all those small places in between do .

David Benton wrote:It seems there must be a full train with diner , sleepers and obs , or no train .

I would agree that there are other options, but the studies often don't consider this, especially the Pioneer study. Perhaps it is forgotten, that this train started out with running as just an all-coach train.

This perhaps begs the question, should Amtrak put something like this in place - or even a DMU of sorts - and build from there in a gradual format? I know this may sound crazy, as we often associate DMU's or RDC's with short-distance corridor or commuter rail. I realize Colorado Railcar Company is out of business for building DMU's, but there are other companies, from what I am told that could provide DMU's (nice wrap around windows, with a snack bar/cafe area built as a customized area) - or even an upgraded/renovated RDC. You'd have to make sure that such a DMU or RDC on this route could handle fully reclining chairs for overnight travel. Course starting out small would also mean that you'd be looking at a "cross the platform" change at either Salt Lake City or Denver. If it is a DMU or RDC service - I say run it to Denver. Gradually build the Pioneer back, with equipment and infrastructure upgrades that the UP may demand as the train gains popularity - and if it gains popularity. Sell out a single DMU, then add a "trailer" and then one would have to wait for Amtrak to order the Superliner III order, so to speak. BC Rail never operated its North Vancouver-Prince George service overnight, but it did travel from nearly 7 a.m. to 9 p.m. (12+ hours). Costs would never be able to cover revenue, despite a staff of just three - snack bar LSA, conductor, engineer/operator. A bi-level DMU would be interesting - with the wrap around windows perhaps on the upper level.

Rockingham Racer wrote:Let me asK: who flies from Hood River to--let's say--Nampa or Pocatello? I think alot of the argument is based on the end-point to end-point mentality. Air serves that well; they don't do well serving intermediate points, and that is where ground transportation is a plus.

On the same token: Can you truly expect someone in Hood River to ONLY travel to Portland at one pre-set time a day? Unfortunately there is a lot of Hood River-Portland and Hood River-The Dalles traffic that simply isn't going to wait for Amtrak. How many people travel from Hood River to Pendleton, or The Dalles to Ontario? Is it worth spending tens of millions to accommodate that virtually non-existant amount of traffic demand when folks in McMinnville have no public transportation option to get to Portland - just 35 miles away, and has more traffic on a two-lane road (Highway 99W) than any point of I-84 has east of MP 17?

The Empire Builder shows that small cities along a train's route can contribute significant ridership, even if the train arrives at inconvenient hours. The Empire Builder is very important to the economy of Montana and North Dakota and those people show their support for "their train". But those communities have had about a century of continuous train service that delivers them reliably to the neighboring towns and big cities on the route. Along the Pioneer route it's been about a generation since the folks in places like Pendleton, Nampa and Twin Falls have seen a passenger train stop in their community. It might take a few years before they discover (or re-discover) their love of the train--whether it's a full service consist or just a single DMU.

Vincent,

This time, it's the rate of loss going here.

Healthcare...

The "stimulus"...

TARP

Our Chinese bankers are going to call the note one of these days. Do we really need more debt, because that's all new service is going to do, is increase debt and the rate we fall into debt.??

Vincent wrote:The Empire Builder shows that small cities along a train's route can contribute significant ridership, even if the train arrives at inconvenient hours.

There's a huge difference between the Empire Builder route and the Pioneer route, however...

On the EB route: air service is virtually non-existant, and for awhile when Big Sky Airlines shut down - it was non-existant until Great Lakes Airlines finally started up service. And air service does not connect the Hi-Line cities, and is also extremely expensive (especially given that most folks who live up there don't exactly have a lot of money). Bus service is non-existant. And for four or five months out of the year, highways are very difficult to drive, and distances between towns can be a very great distance (105 miles from Shelby to Havre, or the same distance between Portland and Olympia or Portland and Eugene; 89 miles from Havre to Malta - or the distance from The Dalles to Portland). I wouldn't say that these cities "love" Amtrak, it's that it's the only reasonable option for them.

The Pioneer Route is, although sparse by Oregon standards, not comparable to U.S. 2. I-84 is seldom closed for days on end and even when it is difficult to navigate, only potions of it (typically Strawberry Hill). While the stretch from The Dalles to Boardman is about 80 miles - folks in Boardman would typically do their business in Hermiston or the Tri-Cities while folks in The Dalles would typically head west to Portland. The distances from other communities is much shorter - typically 30-40 miles apart. And there are other services providers - Greyhound serves the route (and provides service to the Tri-Cities; the only Oregon cities to have decent Amtrak service to the Tri-Cities is Hood River, by way of Bingen-White Salmon, and The Dalles via Wishram (don't try it in the winter, though). Pendleton, Tri-Cities and Boise all have air service. Boise's air service is quite affordable due to competition.

As for "at inconvenient hours" - it should be noted that Whitefish's Amtrak ridership is some 20,000 passengers greater than the much, much, much larger city of Spokane.

wigwagfan wrote:As for "at inconvenient hours" - it should be noted that Whitefish's Amtrak ridership is some 20,000 passengers greater than the much, much, much larger city of Spokane.

Schedule times:
Whitefish = ~0730 eastbound, ~2100 westbound
Spokane = ~0100 eastbound, ~0200 westbound

To me, it appears Whitefish has much better times than Spokane, therefore why should we surprised Whitefish has more embarking and disembarking passengers?

Batman2 wrote:I know it's been a few days since the last post in this thread, but I've been noticing an increasing amount of coverage for the Pioneer route. I want to preface this question by saying that I don't know a lot about this route so I'm not going to claim some strong opinion about it, so I really just wanted to ask for reasons of clarification:

1. Why do the route. As I stated I don't know the details about it, but intuitively I don't see it as that strong a route in terms of the cities it covers. I'm not against it if someone can explain it.

Frankly, Amtrak's study agrees with you: it's simply not that strong a route.

2. Since we have the Empire Builder and California Zephyr, would the main purpose of this route be to provide an inland connection from SLC to Portland? And if that is the case, wouldn't a corridor train work better?

The study indicates that its primary function is to speed traffic from SLC to the Pacific Northwest; in particular, an SLC-Portland train is expected to be less effective than an SLC-Portland-Seattle train.

There's no significant population between Salt Lake City and Portland and it's a long distance, which makes it an LD train by definition; it just isn't suitable as a corridor.

3. What role do existing routes play in this, i.e. is the Pioneer the only possibility for fixing some routing issues?

Well, basically, the routing issue is that currently to get from Salt Lake or Denver to the Pacific Northwest you have to detour via the San Francisco Bay Area. This is horribly indirect and runs through *two* mountain ranges, so it's never going to be a reasonable speed.

Really the motivation for this is simply that Boise wants service again. And I say good for them, but the state of Idaho should fund it.

I do wonder why the study didn't examine the possibility of switching to the north side of the Columbia Gorge and running on BNSF track, because a large portion of the track upgrades identified as necessary by Union Pacific were along the Columbia Gorge track; the upgrades needed on the mainline from Hinkle to Ogden were small comparatively. Maybe the BNSF track would require just as many upgrades, but they *didn't ask*.