Sunset Limited and Pioneer route studies

neroden wrote: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*.

Eastern Oregon (i.e., east of Portland) wants service, too. It was one of Oregon's senators (along with one of Idaho's) that got the language requiring the study added to the Amtrak authorization. And the Oregon communities definitely don't want the train on the Washington side of the Columbia.

neroden wrote: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*.

Well, unless they want to take a 100 mile detour from Hinkle to Pasco and back to the river opposite Hinkle, that's not a good option - no bridges between Pasco and Wishram. Also (per Station Aficionado), Oregon wouldn't go for a Washington routing. Catch 22: If funding did go through for upgrades to the UP, there'd be pressure to move the Builder off the BNSF from Pasco to Portland, and Washington would oppose THAT.

jp1822 wrote: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 like the idea of a bi-level, long-distance DMU that could be tacked onto a Superliner consist, especially if it could serve as distributed power. That way, you get your cake (a through Pioneer to Chicago, coupled onto something else) and eat it too (consists as small as one car, no extra locos needed.) It'll never happen, since Amtrak would rather run a Thruway bus than a single or two-car train, but it's an idea.

If I had to choose for a passenger train to run on the SP&S or the UP, the UP wins hands down.

Wishram barely qualifies as a hamlet, whereas The Dalles has over 17,000 residents. Not to mention that getting to Wishram is not for the faint-of-heart, especially in the winter, while The Dalles' station station (still in use for bus service today) is easily accessible a block north of the city center.

When they were running I rode both the Pioneer (SLC to Portland) and Desert Wind (SLC to southern Cal and Vegas). If I had to choose, I'd go with the Desert Wind, because I think Amtrak needs to get back into Vegas. Vegas is a big potential traffic source assuming Amtrak wants such. I hope I haven't gotten off the subject but that's my 2 cents.

Vegas with 1/day service is a so-what imnsho. There have to be enough movements from LA or SLC to make it worth a damn to take a train vice air, especially from LA.

In LA I can hop to LV from LAX, Burbank, John Wayne, Ontario... but the only place Amtrak'd probably be willing to start a train is LAUPT.

The old city center argument is reversed here. It's the train that's inconvenient.

Besides, is there a fairy-god congresscritter for LA/SLC-LV service? There seems to be one for the Pioneer.

Looking at a Utah map of both southern Utah cities and the UP - it appears that the UP virtually bypasses everyone from Las Vegas to Salt Lake City (i.e. St. George, Cedar City) - is that right?

If so...I can see why the Desert Wind has virtually no support in Utah. It's even MORE desolate than the Pioneer which at least serves the few towns there are...however Boise raises a very big question.

Mr. Halstead, Lund was always listed as the station for Cedar City in UP public timetables. St. George's growth has essentially all occurred since A-Day.

From having ridden UP #6 with its Daylight schedule LV to Ogden, I can affirm the UP LA&SL through Nevada is to say the least, "desolate".

ljeppson wrote:When they were running I rode both the Pioneer (SLC to Portland) and Desert Wind (SLC to southern Cal and Vegas). If I had to choose, I'd go with the Desert Wind, because I think Amtrak needs to get back into Vegas. Vegas is a big potential traffic source assuming Amtrak wants such. I hope I haven't gotten off the subject but that's my 2 cents.

THis may be another run where connection with the CZ & east is required to make ridership numbers work.

It appears that an advocacy group, the Pioneer Restoration Organization, has challenged the conclusions drawn with the mandated Pioneer route study. They prepared a 'Response' to the Amtrak study as provided for by law. Here is a link to their material:

http://www.pioneertrain.com/PioneerResponse.pdf

In essence, other than a routing via Ogden in place of Montpelier, to bring back the Portland Rose, or more specifically the Denver-Portland segment of such, is what the group is proposing. The WB Rose left Denver about 6PM and Cheyenne about 830. It then operated, handling much head-end to every station along the Overland Route to Granger where it diverged on to the Oregon Short Line. This group would have their Rose continue to Roy (just to the East of Ogden) then head South to Salt Lake arriving there 8AM or so. Train then would be wyed and continue on the former route of The Pioneer to Seattle. Boise would be served early afternoon, and the Blue Mountains would be X'd by light of day in both directions. Arrival in Portland would be 7AM and Seattle 12N. EB, the Seattle=Portland departure would be a "Twi-Nite", Boise about Noon, Salt Lake about 8PM, Cheyenne 6AM, Denver 9AM.

That's two days out, volks. That's 421-422, the Eagle/Sunset - minus its numerous and growing on-line population centers.

I guess there are a few potential "mini-Corridors" such as Cheyenne-Denver following the traditional "one a day" pattern of "little town to big town in the morning then back to little town in the evening". I guess, it would add an additional frequency SL-Ogden adding to the existing Frontrunner service. But pity someone traveling from, say, Cheyenne to Ogden; guess what; we throw in an excursion to Salt Lake first.

The advocacy group talks of leisurely travel and offering sightseeing tours for passengers connecting with the Zephyr at Denver. That's great if the operator is American Orient Express (whoops, didn't something happen there?); not so great if we are addressing Federally funded service.

So I think two guesses with the first not counting will show what I think of any such proposal, but others likely hold differing views. Let the discussion continue.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Arrival in Portland would be 7AM and Seattle 12N. EB, the Seattle=Portland departure would be a "Twi-Nite", Boise about Noon

We have also noted interest from potential partners like Northwestern Trailways and the Wild Horse Casino in Pendleton. These appear to have received no attention in the study draft. While the analysis did correctly note the growth in urban transit systems in Seattle, Portland, Salt Lake City and Denver, we have to wonder whether that increased connectivity was considered in formulating the remarkably low ridership forecasts

The schedule seems to directly conflict with this short paragraph from the report. Why would I want to leave extra early from Portland to go to a casino some six hours away or so in the early morning? Or be forced to board the train at the middle of the night (1:00 AM!) to get back home? Such scheduling is exactly why a trip to Spokane in April to visit a friend is NOT happening on Amtrak, but Southwest Airlines (convenient departure around 8:00 AM with arrival about an hour later, return trip departing around 5:30 PM arriving PDX another hour later).

I also fail to see how access to transit in Portland (or any other city) is going to make one shred of difference. After all, Greyhound enjoys the exact same transit advantage (in Portland Greyhound and Amtrak are across the street from each other), and MAX will get you right to the front door of PDX. On the flip side...what do you do when you get to Pendleton?

http://www.pendleton.or.us/index.asp?Ty ... 880B36B335}

Early morning arrival? Nope. Weekends? Nope. Not to mention you MUST have a reservation. For someone who is used to "real" public transit, they're going to be looking for a rental car and fast. Making the four hour trip on I-84 doesn't seem so bad after all...

wigwagfan wrote:
The schedule seems to directly conflict with this short paragraph from the report. Why would I want to leave extra early from Portland to go to a casino some six hours away or so in the early morning? Or be forced to board the train at the middle of the night (1:00 AM!) to get back home? Such scheduling is exactly why a trip to Spokane in April to visit a friend is NOT happening on Amtrak, but Southwest Airlines (convenient departure around 8:00 AM with arrival about an hour later, return trip departing around 5:30 PM arriving PDX another hour later).

I also fail to see how access to transit in Portland (or any other city) is going to make one shred of difference. After all, Greyhound enjoys the exact same transit advantage (in Portland Greyhound and Amtrak are across the street from each other), and MAX will get you right to the front door of PDX.

Early morning arrival? Nope. Weekends? Nope. Not to mention you MUST have a reservation. For someone who is used to "real" public transit, they're going to be looking for a rental car and fast. Making the four hour trip on I-84 doesn't seem so bad after all...

I don't know the situation well, and tend to think that this route is not a good bet.

But your arguments don't make sense. People DO use Amtrak in settings like those you speak of. Transit DOES make a difference for Amtrak, even in cities where there is also transit to the bus or the airport. The casino is no doubt interested because, oddly enough, though you and I would never dream of leaving 'extra early' to go to a casino, the bread and butter of the casino business is catering to oddballs, some of whom do just that. You're arguing a milennialist argument about something that really just requires logical discussion. Transit access and interested partners do make for a somewhat better scenario. You don't have to make untenable arguments about transit and about partners just to come up with reasons to criticize the route.

To me the bottom line is this:

If the Congressional delegations of Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Idaho and Washington want this service, the funding will happen. If this is below their level of political interest, the funding for this service will not happen. I would submit that beyond the study, revisiting the eastern terminus to St Louis or Kansas City, and running this more like UP 17-18 once ran, than as a pure western run, might add political interest and customer base.

As far as the single level issue, the proponents, frankly, are on semi-legal substances. How many single level trains are in service West of the Mississippi River, beyond the Talgos and the Eagles and the MoP (I know, but they are and will be Eagles to me)? The western US fleet and shop forces are used to working to SL equipment.

Frankly, I hold little hope for this service. The political capital of Congress is well and truly tied up in health care. Every other issue is a second banana to that.

ne plus ultra wrote:But your arguments don't make sense. People DO use Amtrak in settings like those you speak of. Transit DOES make a difference for Amtrak, even in cities where there is also transit to the bus or the airport. The casino is no doubt interested because, oddly enough, though you and I would never dream of leaving 'extra early' to go to a casino, the bread and butter of the casino business is catering to oddballs, some of whom do just that. You're arguing a milennialist argument about something that really just requires logical discussion. Transit access and interested partners do make for a somewhat better scenario. You don't have to make untenable arguments about transit and about partners just to come up with reasons to criticize the route.

I had to read your argument and quite frankly, there is no sense to be made of it at all.

Yes, OK, so five people are willing to board Amtrak at a remote station in the middle of the night. However - it DOES discourage ridership. Look at how many people use Amtrak in Salt Lake City, for example...how many MORE people would use Amtrak if the schedule was better? Spokane is another perfect example. Schedules ARE a huge factor into who will use transit (regardless of mode).

A "milennialist" argument? An argument by nature of the millenium? Huh? Logical discussion...uh, why are we arguing over something that occurred ten years ago? Untenable arguments...what is untenable about scheduling? If the schedule doesn't work, people won't use it - it is a very basic argument.

I would think its trip lenght , to get anywhere significant from SLC , that is the main factor there .
Some people would be put off by late nite / early morning departures , but many would also find it convienent .
To me arriving home at 1 -2 am means i still get a nites sleep , and have saved some daytime time , otherwise spent travelling . Of course , in this case , if theres a good chance the trains going to be 1 - 4 hours late , then its not so good at all . which is probably another factor in SLC's relatively low ridership / population ratio .

I doubt that the Denver-Salt Lake City portion of the California Zephyr is the most crowded. There aren't a whole lot of people between Cheyenne and Salt Lake City, so it doesn't seem that adding a second frequency between Denver and Salt Lake City would be a big priority. That's probably why the response suggests making this portion of the trip at night. I think any money spent between Denver and SLC would be better spent on a front range route between Cheyenne and Colorado Springs, and perhaps extending south as far as Albuquerque. Stopping at Ft. Collins and Boulder would be preferable to Greeley. That would help feed the existing CZ at Denver.

The SLC-Seattle segment would need to stand on its own merits. While Amtrak could cobble together a single-level train for this segment in a shorter time frame, doing it right would require waiting for the second year's production of Superliner 3 equipment. The first year's production should really be spent on replacing the dome cars, expanding the Empire Builder consists and increasing the frequency of the Sunset Ltd. between San Antonio and Los Angeles to daily. While J. Bruce Richardson may be a big fan of overnight trains, a two-night trip between Denver and Seattle places a big gamble on the success of the train on passengers willing to pay top dollar for bedrooms. One night between Salt Lake City and Seattle (or points in between) is much more endurable for coach passengers.