Amtrak Empire Builder 2nd Daily Frequency Chicago - St Paul

The new train will add Milwaukee Mitchel Airport and Sturdivant both of which are very brief stops.

Car/driving culture in the United States is strong, but it is not impenetrable. I think policymakers and people who like to discuss these things (like us!) generally underestimate just how much people are willing to take alternative modes if they are safe, comfortable, reliable, and relatively time-competitive with driving. This applies across all kinds of travel scales, from walking and biking to public transit to high-speed rail.

Is an 8-hour trip from Chicago to MSP ideal? No. If you really want to make a dent in mode share along that corridor, you would run true high-speed service with limited stops and hourly departures. But this service will do relatively well. It provides a corridor-style option where it currently doesn't really exist, and is freed of the wildly unpredictable long-distance departure/arrival times on the existing Empire Builder. That departure time is actually just about right for someone along the corridor taking a weekend trip down to Chicago—you get most of your last day in the city to be a tourist, your point of departure is right downtown (and, crucially, not O'Hare!), and you'll get home at a not-totally-unreasonable hour.

Unfortunately that’s not new info. The blog is from May and the wiki doesn’t bother to source the Sept. start.

electricron wrote: ↑Sat Aug 05, 2023 2:03 pm

WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 8:07 am Except if I'm driving 6 hours that's two rest stops. (one for a meal) so now I'm at 6 hours 45 minutes if I don't run into any slowdowns due to traffic and construction, not to mention I'm close to 70 and am going to be completely blown out by the time I reach my destination, so yeah, I'd take the train.

And the train running between Chicago and St.Paul will make many more stops (8 per its schedule)
Per the Empire Builder schedule - timetable
3:05p Chicago, IL Union Station (CHI) (CT) 0
1) 3:29p Glenview, IL (GLN) (Metra) 17
2) 4:35p | 4:45p Milwaukee, WI Downtown (MKE) 85
3) 5:55p Columbus, WI (CBS) (Madison) 15
4) 6:42p Wisconsin Dells, WI (WDL) 195
5) 7:20p Tomah, WI (TOH) 240
6) 8:04p La Crosse, WI * Amtrak Station (LSE) 281
7) 8:34p | 8:40p Winona, MN (WIN) 308
8) 9:42p Red Wing, MN (RDW) 371
10:56p | 11:13p St. Paul-Minneapolis, MN*Union Depot (MSP) 410

If you are driving on I-94 with no traffic signals along the way between Chicago and St/ Paul, are you going to make as many as 8 stops for rest breaks and/or refueling breaks?

What does how many rest stops I take have to do with how many station stops the train makes? I'll make two rest stops which will be much longer than the station stops are. It's end to end realistic travel time and train schedule which determines whether I want to put up with the hassles of driving or not, not how many station stops the train makes.

Messrs. Park and Ron, no way are Amtrak and host CPKC going to get into a speed run. Not everyone drives as leisurely as Mr. Park reports he does (I don't and I'm 82yo. My auto is good for 500 miles on a tank, and I can stay alert for seven hours. Further, I can go seven hours without any food, drink, or "relief"; all you need is discipline).

Now if we want to get into the days of being speedy on the rails, get out your May-October 1961 Q System Timetable, and note the 6hr 50min Chi to Mpls for #21 Morning Zephyr. (oh darn, they allowed the return #24 Afternoon Zephyr 6hr 55min). Now, if THAT isn't enough, #21 made a SAME DAY turn for #24, as well as allowing #24 station time at St Paul to add about five cars from the GN Western Star. I'm sure at times on the tangent segments of the Oregon Aurora line "uh geez, guess we were going a bit over 79, gotta fix that Speedo".

I guess the seven hour CUS to SPUD is as good as you can get in the Amtrak era.

Oh finally, for what it be worth, Mr. Google's "leadfoots" want 6hr 57min for that trip; I'd probably want 7hr 15min.

It's six hours door to door from my house to Mall of America including a 30 minute rest/gas/food stop. It's almost ten hours by train if I'm lucky - 90 minutes to CUS, an hour between trains, six on Amtrak, and if I'm lucky enough to get to the light rail station alive, another hour to get to Bloomington.

This might be convenient if you live in the city center and are going to the city center, but not so much for anyone that lives in the suburbs.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Mr. Olesen, lest we forget with "The Kennedy being The Kennedy", even Mr. Google's Leadfoot will be slowed down. But I can see him now aggressively changing lanes just like one of his brethren traveling North on the 290 near Woodfield in the inner lane and decides he wants to be on the 90 West. Nevermind how close he came to clipping me in the center lane as he pulled his little "stunt".

Amtrak is not trying to win a race with those clowns. Paralleling the Q on US30 sixty years ago Sugar Grove to Shabbona, there was simply no contest. I wouldn't even want to drive a fabled '57 Chevy, after being assured there were no cops around, fast enough to keep up.

Amtrak travels 410 miles and takes almost 8 hours to travel Chicago to St. Paul, averaging slightly over 51 mph.
Those reporting around 6 hours to drive that far are averaging slightly over 68 mph.
Trains need to compete with automobiles if they seek to gain market share, and higher passenger numbers. Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist.
City Nerd has several videos up on youtube on high speed city pairs, and desdribes his gravity model grading them. Almost every city pair on the NEC, based on population and elapse times, earns a score over 20, many even higher. Chicago to St. Paul earned a score around 2 with an elapse time using 200+ mph maximum speed trains. I doubt it could even earn a score of 1 with a train averaging 51 mph.

We need trains that "must" get passengers to their destinations faster than driving. Flying is another matter altogether. High speed trains can compete with planes up to around 3 to 4 hours elapse times, not what we have here with an elapse time at 8 hours. We just do not need more too slow trains in the USA.

The era when trains were the fastest surface transportation option for travelers died with multi0lane paved roads. When automobiles started averaging faster than 50 mph between city pairs, trains started loosing market share. If you really want more passengers on inter city trains, we "must" make them faster than driving. Every dollar spent on slow trains is one less dollar available for fast trains.
As hopefully Brightline will demonstrate in Florida, 200+ mph trains are not needed to compete with automobiles, just faster trains than automobiles will suffice. And yes, 200+ mph trains will be needed to compete with longer distance planes, up to about the trains elapse time being less than 3-4 hours. Over 4 hours, planes will continue to win the market share.

electricron wrote:The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist.

Or people travelling into Chicago for a week who don't need a car there and don't want to pay to park, or who don't want to have to drive into a busy city, or who can't sit for three or four hours at a stretch without their hips/legs/whatever hurting, or who were brought up and taught in driver's ed that it was dangerous to drive six hours with just one stop, or who have poor vision, or who would rather take an extra hour or two but be able to work or doze or watch movies or read books or play cards. All those people are on the trains, too.

Yes, trains will attract more passengers if they are at least as fast as driving door to door for a lot of potential passengers. Also if they are more frequent; with one-a-day some people have to wait more than the total trip time from when they really want to leave to went they can leave--so most of them drive or fly if they can. Maybe better to have two slow trains than one really fast one every day. I dunno.

Yes, the trip lengths you describe are the ones where trains can attract passengers who own cars and don't mind having those cars with them at their destination. Yes, those are the routes to focus on expanding. But there are enough people willing to ride the existing trains that doubling up service on routes like this one is not a waste, unless somehow the new sidings or upgraded signals or whatever is getting built to get the added frequency would have to be replaced again for future faster service.

PS: If you start by calling people who'd prefer not to drive a long distance in a hurry lazy, you're assuming that good people are willing to drive, which is a pretty anti-mass-transportation attitude for someone who clearly wants more passenger trains, and you're insulting a sh**load of the people most likely to choose the train.

Thank you Arborway. You saved me from posting that. A bigger factor to me is the arrival time at stations. I travel out to Cincinnati but the train gets in at 130a and leaves at 330a so that eliminates train travel as a way to get there.

Presumably,there is also a group of people who will take the train, because they believe it to be the least carbon emitting mode.
Quite difficult in our car/plane centric countries, but I know such groups as fly less kiwis, exist here.I'm sure the USA has similar groups and mindsets. Of course it is alot larger in Europe, where the train is a viable alternative.

electricron wrote: ↑Fri Aug 11, 2023 2:43 pm Amtrak travels 410 miles and takes almost 8 hours to travel Chicago to St. Paul, averaging slightly over 51 mph.

Those reporting around 6 hours to drive that far are averaging slightly over 68 mph.
Trains need to compete with automobiles if they seek to gain market share, and higher passenger numbers. Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist.

—-

We need trains that "must" get passengers to their destinations faster than driving. Flying is another matter altogether. High speed trains can compete with planes up to around 3 to 4 hours elapse times, not what we have here with an elapse time at 8 hours. We just do not need more too slow trains in the USA.

—-

The era when trains were the fastest surface transportation option for travelers died with multi0lane paved roads. When automobiles started averaging faster than 50 mph between city pairs, trains started loosing market share. If you really want more passengers on inter city trains, we "must" make them faster than driving. Every dollar spent on slow trains is one less dollar available for fast trains.

I grabbed this quote because it’s true. The passengers I see on Amtrak don’t care about carbon footprints. They care about getting from A—>B safely, they don’t consider a bus safe, and they often don’t have a car.

In the past couple years, Amtrak, with its two routes a day in Kansas City, has set its reliability below the acceptable threshold. Couple that with old cars, no Wi-Fi, and essentially no food service, and it’s all but off my choice of modes.

Amtrak needs to be…
Swifter than the same city pair by auto
Comfortable
Able to support its passenger with food and drink.

"The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist." That quote is not not only false but it is insulting, John.

WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:19 am "The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist." That quote is not not only false but it is insulting, John.

That's entirely a misquote. Here is the entire quote, with the cavat proceeding that quote putting it into context.

Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist..
.
Is there any other reason to ride a train that averages 15 mph slower than driving your own car?
If you can name one, state it.

And please do not even suggest it is cheaper for a typical family of four to pay fares to ride a train than driving their own car.

Now if we want to get into the days of being speedy on the rails, get out your May-October 1961 Q System Timetable, and note the 6hr 50min Chi to Mpls for #21 Morning Zephyr. (oh darn, they allowed the return #24 Afternoon Zephyr 6hr 55min). Now, if THAT isn't enough, #21 made a SAME DAY turn for #24, as well as allowing #24 station time at St Paul to add about five cars from the GN Western Star. I'm sure at times on the tangent segments of the Oregon Aurora line "uh geez, guess we were going a bit over 79, gotta fix that Speedo".

Mr. Norman, This morning I pull out my June 1941 Official Guide (a reprint I must say) and at that time your Milwaukee Road made the journey in 8 hours. I also pulled out my April 1967 guide for a quick comparison.

1941: No. 5, The Afternoon Hiawatha departed Chicago at 9:45 am and arrived in Minneapolis at 5:45 pm.

In April of 1967 The Milwaukee Road carded 4 trains as follows:
No 55 dp. Chicago 11:30 pm ar. Minneapolis 11:30 am (seems like a real "local")
No 1 dp. Chicago 10:30 pm ar. Minneapolis 8:00 am
No 3 dp. Chicago 12:33 pm ar. Minneapolis 7:50 pm (a bit faster than in 1941!)
No 5 dp. Chicago 10:30 am ar. Minneapolis 7:10 am

The Q carded 4 trains in April 1967
No 47 dp. Chicago 10:30 pm ar. Minneapolis 9:05 am
No 23 dp. Chicago 4:30 pm ar. Minneapolis 11:30 pm
No 31 dp. Chicago 1:15 pm ar. Minneapolis 9:15 pm
No 21 dp. Chicago 9:15 am ar. Minneapolis 4:20 pm ( 15 min slower than 1961)

There were still quite a few choices in 1967!