Sunset Limited and Pioneer route studies

jstolberg wrote:I 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.

Should have, could have, and would have isn't being realistic. The initial future Superliner 3 equipment is being built to replace Superliner 1s, not for expanding long distance services. Just read Amtrak's recent studies, the only trains Amtrak wants to expand or provide additional services are on routes States are willing to subsidize. If Amtrak could get their way, States would subsidize everything Amtrak does.

Given the recent news that Oregon has decided to buy two Talgos, plus the interest in restoring the Pioneer, and the question of equipment - I have to wonder if maybe using the two new Talgo sets would be better employed on a Seattle-Portland-Boise train (which can be done in one very long day, but it would not be an overnight thus allowing the Talgo train use) where the curvature of the UP Portland and La Grande subs would actually put the Talgo through its paces.

The two new Talgos will only replace the two existing Talgos owned by WSDOT, which wants to use them on their own trains - so it isn't for service expansion; further the UP Brooklyn Sub has very, very few curves to where there is a technology benefit of the Talgos. In the 100 miles from Eugene to Canby, the only significant curves are found at Hito (just south of Canby), from Hubbard to Salem is near tangent (about 20 miles) and from Albany to Harrisburg is another 20 mile long tangent (hence the naming of the town of Tangent, just south of Albany).

By using the Talgos and running a Seattle-Boise train, you have a train that can leave Seattle about 5:00 AM which provides an early morning option for those wanting to get to Portland in time for 10:00 AM business meetings; it provides a very convenient departure time for Portland to easterly cities, with a last night (but not too late) arrival into Boise. Amtrak could then offer another train from Boise east to Salt Lake City which would depart the next morning; and partner with a hotel very close to the railroad station for those who are continuing a rail trip through Boise.

wigwagfan wrote:Given the recent news that Oregon has decided to buy two Talgos, plus the interest in restoring the Pioneer, and the question of equipment - I have to wonder if maybe using the two new Talgo sets would be better employed on a Seattle-Portland-Boise train (which can be done in one very long day, but it would not be an overnight thus allowing the Talgo train use) where the curvature of the UP Portland and La Grande subs would actually put the Talgo through its paces.
Amtrak could then offer another train from Boise east to Salt Lake City which would depart the next morning; and partner with a hotel very close to the railroad station for those who are continuing a rail trip through Boise.

Excellent idea, just one major problem. Oregon isn't buying the Talgo trainsets so Amtrak can run them to Idaho. Just like California didn't buy Capitol Corridor trains so Amtrak can run them to Nevada, although I have read they may eventually terminate some in Reno. Never-the-less, I don't expect Capitol Corridor trains to ever reach Elko....

<i>Oregon isn't buying the Talgo trainsets so Amtrak can run them to Idaho.</i>

I'd agree with you, except Oregon can do whatever it wants with them...so what's the difference between Idaho and Washington? It's not as if those trains are running Portland-Ashland; and if those trains do continue to Washington (after all, the trains will be maintained in Washington, by Washington residents, in Seattle, some 160 miles north of the Oregon border) they will put more miles under their wheels in Washington than in Oregon.

So...having those trains run the 360 miles from Portland to Ontario, and another 50 or so to reach Boise, seems like it more benefits Oregon, than in an corridor on existing schedules where the public has largely ignored it (25% load factors, I-5 still jammed up during the day when the trains don't run, ignores local service). Idaho and Utah can decide whether to extend service east.

John_Perkowski wrote: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.??

I'm tired of these OT debt paranoia comments. The "bankers" are not going to "call the note" because at that moment they are bankrupt as well! The Euro may be the "dollar killer" but it has debt problems as well. Governments (like big business) can continue to function with high levels of debt. If I were you, I'd be preparing for more income/payroll taxes as well as higher local taxes/local government cuts before I start sounding the alarm that the lights are about to go out on the national passenger rail network.

Actually, when John McCain (the Senate's #1 Amtrak foe) is president, then I will become the Cassandra of passenger rail. Woe!

wigwagfan wrote:

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.

Google "millennialist". It means something different than what you think. Most millennialists didn't live at the time of a millennium. They're people who believe despite all evidence that the millennium has arrived, that god is going to end the world soon, that the sky is falling. This was a commonplace of cartoonists 40 years ago, long before the actual millennium was looming. A goofball walks around with a sign saying "the world is ending". It's a very absolutist worldview. By calling your arguments millennialist, I was saying that you've made your points in such an exaggerated, absolutist way, that they've lost the strength that they should indeed carry.

So for instance, you said that transit access makes "not a shred of difference." Frankly, I don't even think you believe this. Almost anyone would look at such a statement and dismiss it out of hand. So I'm suggesting that if you tame your arguments back down to size, you'll be more convincing. "Transit makes a big difference, but there are reasons to think in this case, it won't make enough of a difference to justify the subsidized train ..."

Likewise, you tried to make a point about the casino by saying "why would I ...?" and the clear implication was "why would anyone ...?" And again, I agree with what should have been your point - the much calmer point you make in your follow-up -- schedules are very important.

So say that. Don't pretend that it's absurd to think anyone would travel to a casino on an oddly scheduled train. It isn't absurd. The casino itself thinks some useful number of people will use it -- that's why they've said they'd like to partner with such a train. I'm sure they didn't add their name as interested because they thought 5 people would use the train on a given day. I agree with you that the casino trip, at odd hours, is unlikely to add enough passengers to make it worth subsidizing.

But by saying "why would I ...travel at odd hours", you've merely invited someone to set you straight that many people do travel at odd hours.

So just tone down the rhetoric. When emotion makes you overstate a case, it weakens it.

wigwagfan wrote:<i>Oregon isn't buying the Talgo trainsets so Amtrak can run them to Idaho.</i>

I'd agree with you, except Oregon can do whatever it wants with them...so what's the difference between Idaho and Washington? It's not as if those trains are running Portland-Ashland; and if those trains do continue to Washington (after all, the trains will be maintained in Washington, by Washington residents, in Seattle, some 160 miles north of the Oregon border) they will put more miles under their wheels in Washington than in Oregon.

So...having those trains run the 360 miles from Portland to Ontario, and another 50 or so to reach Boise, seems like it more benefits Oregon, than in an corridor on existing schedules where the public has largely ignored it (25% load factors, I-5 still jammed up during the day when the trains don't run, ignores local service). Idaho and Utah can decide whether to extend service east.

I'm with you. There are other examples - the overwhelming Wisconsin role in subsidizing the Hiawathas, though they run to Illinois and have relatively few passengers who don't either embark or disembark at one of the Illinois stations. If passengers from Boise can in effect help subsidize service to eastern Oregon, (since it would cost very little extra to run the extra 50 miles, so it's possible that the additional pax would cover additional costs), I expect Oregon would consider it.

Wigwagfan's suggestion of a day-train to Boise with Oregon support and then a different train southward to Utah seems more likely to happen than the revival of a long-distance train. I could foresee Idaho supporting a train scheduled around students in Pocatello and a decent arrival and departure at the termini in Utah and in Boise. I'm still agnostic on whether any service along these tracks is a good idea, but I tend to favor WWF's proposal over a revived Pioneer.

ne plus ultra wrote:So just tone down the rhetoric. When emotion makes you overstate a case, it weakens it.

Likewise.

wigwagfan wrote:

ne plus ultra wrote:So just tone down the rhetoric. When emotion makes you overstate a case, it weakens it.

Likewise.

I didn't overstate my case. And you didn't even pretend to point to anywhere where I did so. Otherwise, I'd say thanks for the great advice.

Ran across this in a random Google search: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2009/05/3 ... r-way.html

Now, two U.S. senators, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are working to bring back the route, persuading Congress to pay for a study - due in October - to see if it's feasible.

Boise is poised for the train's return. The city has owned the Boise Depot since 1996 and has reserved space in it for Amtrak. The depot also figures into the city's long-term vision for a commuter rail system connecting communities in Ada and Canyon counties. The city owns about 18 miles of track to the east of Boise, a line that branches off from the main line that the Pioneer would use. That line, which was set to be abandoned by Union Pacific before the city bought it in 2000, was purchased so that the Pioneer would have a way to come into Downtown Boise if Amtrak ever restored the route.



Read more: http://www.thenewstribune.com/2009/05/3 ... z0nj8aiLs3

Sarge, even if we are both veterans - and both Sergeants - and CPA's as i have surmised, I think we must recognize that there is really no new news here. As such I believe this is the principal "Brief passage" from this article:

• Now, two U.S. senators, Mike Crapo, R-Idaho and Ron Wyden, D-Ore., are working to bring back the route, persuading Congress to pay for a study - due in October - to see if it's feasible.

Of course US Senators representing the State are going to say 'we're working on it' - what have they to loose?

But the fact remains that Amtrak complied with PRIIA 08 (Div B RSIA 08) and commissioned consultant reports regarding both trains noted in the topic. In the case of the Pioneer, the consultants came to the same conclusion regarding that there are simply very considerable capital costs that would be required to consider its restoration.

Since the 1997 "whacking" of the Pioneer, the UP has planned their freight operations around the absence of interference from such - and has even "whacked" the trackage through downtown Boise. There is nothing in this article to upset the consultant's conclusions - there's nothing suggesting that the two US Senators find the report to be "hogwash' and are commissioning their own consulting report (how much did they give to the PAC?).

Gilbert B Norman wrote:Sarge, even if we are both veterans - and both Sergeants - and CPA's as i have surmised, I think we must recognize that there is really no new news here.

Indeed. The article is from a year ago. At least I'm pretty sure it is. If you open the page, it carries a 2010 date, but the URL is 2009, and it's exactly the news that was coming out a year ago. My guess is that the newspaper has some sort of automatic re-dating process that has gone haywire.

Yeah, I see the URL date; I always limit my google searches to the last week or month, depending. And yes, you're right, news about politicos pushing this study or that don't amount to much, but of course, if someone's vote is need in exchange for an earmark, Harry and Nancy will play along as we've seen. We all know Amtrak is a political animal, as much as we may not like it.

In any case, sorry I stirred the "dust".

wigwagfan wrote:

Vincent wrote: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).

This is incredibly pessimistic.
We could very well say the same thing for ANY Amtrak train, your Cascades as well.

People in Idaho used the train and it was popular when it ran before so-called expert consultants recommended Amtrak discontinue a viable route to allow the CZ to run daily.

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

Then let's gut your SW Chief, Calif. Zephyr, Empire Builder, Texas Eagle, et. al.
Because a train route can't run more than one frequency a day, it shouldn't exist.
Makes no sense.