Amtrak Cascades Schedule

[Westernstar1]

I wonder why there isn't a better through train schedule, for the Cascades, between Portland, OR and Vancouver, BC. Likewise, Vancouver, BC to Portland, OR.

Looking at northbound Cascade trains, Train # 500 (Mon-Fri) leaves Portland at 8:20 AM, arriving in Seattle at 11:50 AM. Why couldn't # 500 continue on to Vancouver? It would arrive around 4:00 PM. Make it a daily train. There is train # 518 that leaves Portland at 3:00 PM, but it doesn't get into Vancouver until 11:00 pm, kind of late.

Southbound from Vancouver to Portland is better. There is train #517, a daily train, that leaves Vancouver at 6:35 AM arrives into Portland at 3:00 PM.
That's more like it.

Would it be possible, eventually, have 2 morning trains (one early and one late morning) in each direction. Possibly eliminate some of the thruway bus connectors.

Western Star

[east point]

Anyone have the schedule that was cut short by the derailment ?

[NorthWest]

A lot of this has to do with how the service developed. The evening run to Vancouver originally turned overnight in Bellingham, rather than continue across the border. The trips were set up to generally allow commuting, with a train south into Seattle in the morning, and one out in the evening, with the morning northbound going all the way to Vancouver and turning as the evening southbound. Portland-Vancouver traffic was apparently less important than more local traffic.

Eventually, funding was worked out to fund customs so the second round trip could continue all the way to Vancouver. (This moved the morning Bellingham-south part back a couple hours, making it less useful for commuting).

To get another train over the border, another customs/border patrol funding package would need to be worked out, as well as paying BNSF for the additional track space (which is pretty short in supply north of Seattle). Depending on how the rotations were worked out more trainsets would probably be needed, and they're short one already.

Anyone have the schedule that was cut short by the derailment ?

A Seattle-Portland round trip was dropped after the accident. Nothing else changed.

The north of Seattle trains remain essentially on the same schedule as before the rescheduling of 2016, just with slightly different train numbers. The south of Portland trains had their schedules messed up then, and they remain so.

[Tadman]

This service has a frustrating schedule because they have never done a clean-sheet revision since the beginning. It is very hard to get from Portland to Vancouver same day. It is hard to interline with Alaska ferry at Bellingham, which is only seasonal and perhaps 3x/week.

I would propose the following:

1. Review the Vancouver trains, try to add one more mid-day, and make it easier to get from Portland.
2. Add a local or Sounder that coordinates with the Alaska ferry only on the days it runs, perhaps all the way through Seattle to Tukwila for the airport.
3. Have a better Tukwila-Seatac connection, currently this is an awful workaround and I usually use uber.'
4. Shorten the Starlight to Portland and use that track slot for a corridor train. This adds a predictable service for many passengers.

[wigwagfan]

It is very hard to get from Portland to Vancouver same day.

Looking at the latest edition of the Amtrak Cascades schedule, train 518 from PDX to YVR (a.k.a. VAC) is a full eight hour journey. The "Crow's Fly" distance is 260 miles, although the railroad doesn't have the luxury of taking the straight line route. Given that there are generally few business connections between Portland and Vancouver, is this even a market worth fighting for?

On the other extreme, Portland-Eugene continues to exhibit extremely poor ridership despite schedule tinkering, new trains, extremely low fares...the Talgo is just way too much train, and having one train run PDX-EUG and sit for hours in the middle of UP's Eugene Yard is just an absolute waste of infrastructure and money that could be better spent earning revenue PDX-SEA.

If Amtrak could get its act together and turn a train in a reasonable manner, with existing equipment there could be six daily round-trips Seattle-Portland on the existing schedule (not even looking at the 20 some minutes of savings using the Point Defiance Bypass). However, by having trains sit around for hours, Amtrak (and WSDOT and ODOT) are literally wasting time and money while traffic on I-5 just keeps climbing. Given that Amtrak barely even cleans the trains at the end of the run anyways, why does Amtrak need to park a train at Portland's Union Station for four hours (or more) before returning back to Seattle - that's 300+ seats, at $30/seat, $9,000 in potential revenue that Amtrak is literally saying they don't want.

With one more trainset you could go up to 8 round trips a day, and that's basically a train every two hours during the day. Something that would really attract even more ridership - a schedule you can count on.

[ExCon90]

Not to point the finger, but in the 1950's the Great Northern ran 3 round trips a day (morning, afternoon, and evening) between Seattle and Vancouver with two trainsets, which afaik had to be turned at each end because of the observation lounge--so such turnarounds are possible.

[mtuandrew]

Not to point the finger, but in the 1950's the Great Northern ran 3 round trips a day (morning, afternoon, and evening) between Seattle and Vancouver with two trainsets, which afaik had to be turned at each end because of the observation lounge--so such turnarounds are possible.

Weaker safety culture and more railroad staff in the 1950s, plus incentive to actually give passenger trains priority. That doesn’t mean 3 RTs with two sets can’t be done today, but push-pull and higher speeds will definitely help make up for having fewer yard personnel and more safety protections.

[Gilbert B Norman]

Messrs. Ex Con and Stephens, equipment turns such as you both have noted were quite common during the '50's. This is of course back when rail travel was "in the game" and competed not only with air and auto but also with other railroads.

Thinking of the Chi-Twin Cities market, the Q assigned a 2 hour turnaround at both Chi and Mpls to the "more smiles to the miles" Twin Zephyrs. To keep their less than seven hour schedule, they "had the (single tracked) road", and considering the non rail competition (poking along US12 in your non-a/c'd De Soto stuck behind a semi or going to Midway and boarding a Northwest DC-3 @ treble the rail fare to Wold-Chamberlain sound like fun?) had the business.

But probably the best turn was for a Slumbercoach that arrived on Q #6, Denver Zephyr and made a same day - 3hrs - turn to #25 North Coast Limited - and same #26 to #5.

Investor owned railroads wanted your business seventy years ago. Too bad that want was "done for" by 1960.

[mtuandrew]

Speaking of investor-owned roads, can anyone here tell us the turn-and-burn time for Brightline? It’s the only line which has both FRA regulations and investors driving them to provide the best service with the minimum of equipment.

If Amtrak can beat them with a faster equipment turn on the NEC, I’d be amazed. I’d like to see Amtrak try to turn trains in half-again as much time (1.5x) as Brightline, and lower the threshold from there.

[David Benton]

The Hiawatha's seem to have a pretty good turnaround time.

[Tadman]

...Given that there are generally few business connections between Portland and Vancouver, is this even a market worth fighting for?

...

On the other extreme, Portland-Eugene continues to exhibit extremely poor ridership despite schedule tinkering, new trains, extremely low fares...the Talgo is just way too much train, and having one train run PDX-EUG and sit for hours in the middle of UP's Eugene Yard is just an absolute waste of infrastructure and money that could be better spent earning revenue PDX-SEA....

With one more trainset you could go up to 8 round trips a day, and that's basically a train every two hours during the day. Something that would really attract even more ridership - a schedule you can count on.

Some wise words here. The Eugene run could just as easily be serviced with a few horizons and a cab car serving as a shuttle. It's 120 miles approx, about the same as the Port Jervis, Montauk, or South Shore runs, all of which are amply served with commuter cars.

Regarding the "is Portland to Vancouver a necessary service?" question, I have the same question. Strikes me that a Vancouver-Seattle-Seatac-Tacoma route coupled with Seattle-Portland and Portland-Eugene would make a lot more sense than trying to string all three together.

[east point]

Tadman you conveniently pass over the fact that Oregon owns Talgos and wants seamless service to at least Seattle.

[njtmnrrbuff]

The whole point of the Point Defiance Bypass is to shave off time on the trip south of Seattle. I believe the original plan is to shave at least 10-15 minutes off but if the travel time can be dropped some more, than that would help make the train time competitive with driving. SEA-Vancouver BC is a serious issue with time. Even for two trips in each direction, the train is a bit slower than driving from Vancouver BC to Seattle. In little or no traffic, the drive from Vancouver BC to Seattle is almost three hours. The train ride is a whooping four hours and twenty five minutes. I think probably one of the main issues is the routing in Vancouver BC. Presently after trains depart Vancouver, BC, they have to proceed a few miles southeast and then the loop begins around the Braid Skytrain Station. I think when traveling from Bellingham to Seattle, the trip times on the train get a little more comparable to driving but the train unfortunately loses when there is little traffic on the road still. The southbound trains take longer between Seattle and Bellingham-two hours and twenty five minutes while the northbounds take anywhere between two hours and five minutes to two hours and twelve minutes.

As for riding 90-120 miles in commuter rail routes that can be compared to the Cascades, riding from Hoboken to Pt. Jervis is actually 95 rail miles but as the crow flies, it is probably 60 miles. The most direct way of driving to Pt. Jervis from Hoboken takes about 67 miles-taking local roads to get to 495. You then take 495 to get to Rt. 3 which takes you to 46 and then once you enter 23, you remain on 23 the rest of the way. 23 is not a true highway. There are plenty of traffic lights on Rt. 23 and when there is traffic, you aren't moving on that road for a while. Taking an express train from Hoboken to Pt. Jervis takes just over two hours-many of them after Secaucus run nonstop to Ramsey-Rt 17 Station, skip Mahwah, and then become a local at Suffern and remain that way for the duration of the trip to Pt. Jervis. During the week, there are two trains in each direction during the rush hour that run nonstop from Secaucus Jct to Harriman and then remain a local to Pt. Jervis vice versa. The Pt. Jervis Line isn't the most direct route. Once you get past Middletown-Town of Walkill, then the trip times start to be uncomparable with driving some more.

[Tadman]

Tadman you conveniently pass over the fact that Oregon owns Talgos and wants seamless service to at least Seattle.

But looking at the timetable, only one southbound runs through. Northbound there are three. If Eugene service were critical, they'd demand all trains run through.

I look at it as a messaging issue. Portland is a big city, needing connections to Seattle for business. Eugene is a university town, needing connections to Portland and Salem for academic, administrative, and staffing purposes. The service should be separated, but the messaging behind it is critical. If Amtrak or WSDOT were to just send over five old conventional coaches in Phase IV from the Michigan pool, it would say "third class". If five rehabbed and Cascade-painted conventional coaches showed up with high density seating, wifi, and bike racks (maybe five cars if bike racks?) with the idea that this was to achieve for Portland better international/national service with the Talgos, maybe the idea sells better.

Call it the "Dashing Duck" if you will.

[Suburban Station]

The Hiawatha's seem to have a pretty good turnaround time.

agreed, and I've seen them turn keystone trains very quickly though they don't schedule them that way, they just sit. a lot of it is around NYP slots though, presumably if there were HAR-PHL trains they'd be turned much faster. there is evidence that amtrak can do it though the lack of cab cars and Penn slots/OTP issues may preclude it in some cases.