Railroad Forums 

  • North Coast Hiawatha - Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority (BSPRA)

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1562109  by Rockingham Racer
 
I cannot find any reference to the BNSF requirements to add this passenger train. As I mentioned earlier, this line now is the same as the railroad's more northerly route through Montana, with all sorts of upgrades having been done to accommodate the oil trains in the area. Who's got the details on what the BNSF wants to do for the multi-millions of dollars in improvements that they want?
 #1562123  by Tom V
 
What are some options to restoring the North Coast Hiawatha?

Could it be routed through South Dakota? Aberdeen?
 #1562134  by markhb
 
Tom V wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 11:12 am What are some options to restoring the North Coast Hiawatha?

Could it be routed through South Dakota? Aberdeen?
I think going through Aberdeen buys very little; you wind up going well out of the way (as compared to the straight line through ND), having to open new lines in MN to passenger service (as opposed to using the EB route to Fargo), and missing ND's state capital while staying on BNSF. The real shame is that there's no route that parallels I-90 through southern SD, connecting MSP to Sioux Falls and Rapid City, that continues through to Montana; that road dead-ends in Wyoming.
 #1562142  by Gilbert B Norman
 
markhb wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:29 pm The real shame is that there's no route that parallels I-90 through southern SD, connecting MSP to Sioux Falls and Rapid City, that continues through to Montana; that road dead-ends in Wyoming.
Well, Mr. Mark HB, not completely sure how you'd get West of Rapid City (even if that was good enough for Cary and Eva Marie to "have a little sport"), and for that matter East of Marquette, IA, but my MILW certainly had the most impressive bridge over the "Mighty MO" in SD at Chamberlain. It also had the second most impressive at Mobridge.



It appears there is still a road, the Dakota Southern supposedly operates over the State owned right of way.

I never got near that part of the road during my eleven year "hitch', however I did get to see sights from a motorcar such as X-ing the "Mo" at Kansas City and also the Sixteenmile Canyon in Montana.

Suffice to say, "the Gubm'nt" built it as part as part of a dam project, as they did at Mobridge.
 #1562414  by markhb
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 3:47 pm
markhb wrote: Fri Jan 29, 2021 1:29 pm The real shame is that there's no route that parallels I-90 through southern SD, connecting MSP to Sioux Falls and Rapid City, that continues through to Montana; that road dead-ends in Wyoming.
Well, Mr. Mark HB, not completely sure how you'd get West of Rapid City (even if that was good enough for Cary and Eva Marie to "have a little sport"), and for that matter East of Marquette, IA, but my MILW certainly had the most impressive bridge over the "Mighty MO" in SD at Chamberlain. It also had the second most impressive at Mobridge.



It appears there is still a road, the Dakota Southern supposedly operates over the State owned right of way.

I never got near that part of the road during my eleven year "hitch', however I did get to see sights from a motorcar such as X-ing the "Mo" at Kansas City and also the Sixteenmile Canyon in Montana.

Suffice to say, "the Gubm'nt" built it as part as part of a dam project, as they did at Mobridge.
Mr. Norman, I wish the MOW of the rest of that route was up to snuff with the engineering marvel of that bridge! Also, if you've ever had the chance to be out that way on rubber tires, SD has a rest stop off I-90 at Chamberlain with a very nice scenic overlook of the river.

But alas, as you alluded to, that road dead-ends somewhere near Devil's Tower (or dives back down to Nebraska) rather than continuing through to Montana, so for the purpose of providing an alternative routing to CSX through southern ND, well, as they say in my neck of the woods, "you can't get there from here!"
 #1562571  by Backshophoss
 
The NC Hi did follow the Builder's routing out of Chicago,might be better to start the Hi from where it spun off the Builder's routing with a connecting coach/sleeper(a la Eagle) from Chicago
 #1567966  by Jeff Smith
 
Pennsy's falling down on me: https://missoulacurrent.com/business/20 ... r-service/
Amtrak will provide guidance and support to the Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority as it works to restore service across the southern tier of Montana, an agency representative said last week. Rob Eaton, director of government affairs for Amtrak out of Washington state, said the authority’s efforts will take time to net results, though it’s mission isn’t impossible.
...
State corridors have seen increased ridership, Eaton said. The southern route through Montana would hit the state’s largest population centers.

“Corridor routes are a strong part of our future,” he said. “What you have done is definitely historic. You’ve created a rail authority without direct action from the Legislature or governor’s office.”
...
Eaton said the authority must work to establish that vision and build partnerships with state officials and host railroads. In Montana, that’s Montana Rail Link and the Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railway Co.

“We’ll be your conduit to your host railroad,” Eaton said. “We’ve had some initial conversations with MRL. Your relationship with MRL will have to be strong. What I hope to do is work with you as you develop your vision.”

Eaton said Amtrak can help with other aspects as well, including cost modeling, analyzing infrastructure needs, and thoughts on ownership of the rolling stock. In some states, such as Washington, the state owns the locomotives.
...
 #1567970  by Pensyfan19
 
Have I heard my name called??? :P

I was going to say, I'm surprised that this route wasn't listed in "Amtrak: Connects Us", but it's still great to see this plan moving forward.
 #1568102  by gokeefe
 
I'm not surprised they didn't make it into the plan. The Connects US plan really has a strong focus on getting service to the highest density lowest service cities.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1568216  by gokeefe
 
Rockland yes. Concord, NH (pop. 43,627)? Definitely not. At least Rockland is probably only seasonal service.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 #1568580  by electricron
 
gokeefe wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:21 pm I'm not surprised they didn't make it into the plan. The Connects US plan really has a strong focus on getting service to the highest density lowest service cities.
I mentioned on another thread my observation that Biden's plan includes routes that had already completed formal feasibility studies the FRA recognizes in the last decade or so, to be followed up with Tier 1 and Tier 2 EIS studies. Some on Amtrak's list have not even started Tier 1 studies, and some have completed Tier 2 studies, but all have completed the feasibility studies.

The North Coast Hiawatha feasibility study was for reimplementing a long distance train all the way from Seattle to Chicago - and it did not pass muster. That is why the rail advocates have changed their aims to a regional train service. So a new feasibility study is required for the shorter train service. Which will also need to be followed up with Tier 1 and Tier 2 EIS studies before this new train can begin service.

Amtrak is willing to help, but Amtrak is not going to fund these studies. That is up to the states and regional planning organizations to do. Good luck!

And editors, here is another thread under the Amtrak Long Distance sub forum that should be in the Amtrak Corridor sub forum. The aims of the advocates and planners have changed tactics.
 #1568614  by markhb
 
electricron wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 7:28 am
gokeefe wrote: Wed Apr 07, 2021 8:21 pm I'm not surprised they didn't make it into the plan. The Connects US plan really has a strong focus on getting service to the highest density lowest service cities.
The North Coast Hiawatha feasibility study was for reimplementing a long distance train all the way from Seattle to Chicago - and it did not pass muster. That is why the rail advocates have changed their aims to a regional train service. So a new feasibility study is required for the shorter train service. Which will also need to be followed up with Tier 1 and Tier 2 EIS studies before this new train can begin service.
What are they thinking for endpoints of the regional service?
 #1568673  by electricron
 
markhb wrote: Tue Apr 13, 2021 2:03 pm What are they thinking for endpoints of the regional service?
In the news article recently linked above,
"The Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is looking to restore the route, though other connections could be made along the way, including a route between Salt Lake City and Butte, and another between Denver and Billings."

I believe the Big Sky PRA is still dreaming for a long distance train, but I do not think Montana can afford to do so by themselves. Which is the point the Amtrak manager was trying to make, Montana needs to find financial partners and decide upon a regional service they wish to implement.

There is a process that has to be followed for Amtrak to introduce new services.
Here are great links for starters
https://www.transit.dot.gov/funding/gra ... ut-program
and
https://www.federalregister.gov/documen ... ts-program
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32