St. Paul, Milwaukee, Chicago (TCMC) second daily service

Though it's not technically wrong to reference the Mississippi River with a name like Great River (and Amtrak has surprisingly little trackage along it) only about 1/3 of this CHI-STP routing is along the Mississippi. And the coloquial associations most people have of the mighty Mississippi and river lore are much farther downstream...St Louis, Memphis, Natchez, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, etc. It would kind of be like naming a rail line between Syracuse and Watertown the Emprie State Limited. It's not...wrong...but it's not really what most people would think for that name.

As for Borealis....it will take some time to grow on me. Of course I know about the Aurora Borealis but the name still makes me think of Boron and Lavoris (old mouthwash brand). Whatever they call it I just want it to S T A R T already!

I share your feelings, @moselman66 ! The name will take a bit to grow on me and I also just want the service to start. People who are interested can read this agenda (linked below) for the next Great River Rail Commission meeting on March 7, along with the minutes from the last GRRC meeting. Greg Mathis of MnDOT will be providing an official update on the status of the Borealis/second train, which should be interesting.

The minutes from the January GRRC meeting double-confirm what some have said here: There was a weird spat between the GRRC and Amtrak on trademarking the name "Great River Service." Basically, the GRRC got cold feet and was unhappy when Amtrak asked them to sign a consent agreement about the name, which Amtrak was trying to trademark. And now the issue of trademarking etc. is moot since the different name was chosen (probably in part due to this spat). All's well that ends well, I guess?

I guess it should be no surprise that Amtrak got two bites at the naming apple, and screwed up both of them.

The name should have Hiawatha in it, period. It is so simple even a caveman could do it. But not Amtrak.

Kramerica said:

I guess it should be no surprise that Amtrak got two bites at the naming apple, and screwed up both of them.

The name should have Hiawatha in it, period. It is so simple even a caveman could do it. But not Amtrak.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that it is Amtrak that chose the name and not Minnesota and/or Wisconsin DOT? If so could you provide some evidence that it is Amtrak alone that chose the name?

I don't know who chose it. The point still stands against whomever did make the choice. Two swings and two misses? Will they get a third swing? I hope so.

All evidence that I have heard points to, as Jis mentioned, that it was likely the MN and WI DOTs that chose the name (maybe IL pitched in a few thoughts as well). I don't believe that Amtrak chose the name. Come to think of it, last September I heard a MnDOT rep on a public meeting mention that the state DOTs were working on a name themselves; presumably, the Borealis name is what came out of that. Personally I don't understand the issue giving this service a name like Borealis is, but to each their own.

I get that the Hiawatha is both a historical name in this corridor & the name of the Chi - Milwaukee service, but to be fair, how many (non-train/Amtrak nerd) people under the age of 60 in MN or WI have the foggiest idea about the Twin Cities Hiawatha? Of course in southeast WI people are much more aware of the name "Hiawatha," due to the existing service, but in MN, which is one of the main markets for the Borealis, it's not well known.

And for younger people under 30/35, and specifically college students who are huge potential users of this service, the name Hiawatha has no real meaning. Not to say its a "bad" name at all, but I don't think it will make any difference. Honestly Borealis is a pretty memorable and unique name, which might even be an actively positive thing.

Kramerica said:

I don't know who chose it. The point still stands against whomever did make the choice. Two swings and two misses? Will they get a third swing? I hope so.

Click to expand...

You stated “it should be no surprise that Amtrak…” So, that implies you are placing the blame on Amtrak.

Kramerica said:

I guess it should be no surprise that Amtrak got two bites at the naming apple, and screwed up both of them.

The name should have Hiawatha in it, period. It is so simple even a caveman could do it. But not Amtrak.

Click to expand...

I understand the historical reference, but there already is an Amtrak service named "Hiawatha." For folks who are not Amtrak buffs or regular riders, I don't think having multiple services named Hiawatha would be of good use.

Although there have been solid improvements, Amtrak's signage and wayfinding at Chicago Union Station (and the attitude of staff) still leaves much to be desired.

Likewise, there will hopefully be Amtrak service to Madison and Green Bay that will likely be continuations of what is now Hiawatha Service. Some differentiation is going to be needed.

rs9 said:

I understand the historical reference, but there already is an Amtrak service named "Hiawatha." For folks who are not Amtrak buffs or regular riders, I don't think having multiple services named Hiawatha would be of good use.

Click to expand...

Historically, The Milwaukee Road used Hiawatha as a suffix to various trains...in effect it was MILW parlance to denote a "streamliner", in the same sense that the Burlington used the name, "Zephyr", which, by the way, Amtrak still does today for the CZ and IZ...

Other names used multi-train historically, on these and affiliated lines included:

Eagle on the Missouri Pacific
Rocket on the Rock Island
Chief on the Santa Fe
City on the Union Pacific
400 on the North Western
Silver on the Seaboard

What the future holds is that there will be more Hiawathas between MKE and CHI. But SOME of them will be extended to GB, MSP, and MSN. What would be be confusing to non-foamers is that there are 4 completely different names for a train that goes between MKE and CHI. What would make a lot of sense would be to use Hiawatha as a suffix to each one.

MSP: Borealis Hiawatha; Twin Cities Hiawatha; 400 Hiawatha
MSN: Isthmus Hiawatha; Monona Hiawatha
GB: Bay Hiawatha; Fox Hiawatha
MKE: Hiawatha; Cream City Hiawatha

Those are just examples and there are many other good variations for each city.

These names would make a lot of sense as a family of trains all starting on the same CHI-MKE route. Regular users in MKE (which will still be the most-used city pair to Chicago in the Hiawatha system) will just need to know they can take any Hiawatha and won't have to remember four different names of trains they could use.

Following the example of Northeast Regionals, maybe all regional service running North of Chicago should simply be called Northern Regional so that people can stop bellyaching about name. LOL

Kramerica said:

These names would make a lot of sense as a family of trains all starting on the same CHI-MKE route. Regular users in MKE (which will still be the most-used city pair to Chicago in the Hiawatha system) will just need to know they can take any Hiawatha and won't have to remember four different names of trains they could use.

Click to expand...

Given that the Hiawatha is all-reserved, passengers will simply ride whatever train time and number is on the ticket they book. I doubt there are really that many passengers boarding based on train name.

Maybe we need a special word to describe railroad passenger services provided by Amtrak that can be used for marketing purposes. I don't know. How about "train"? Or is that too radical. Maybe "MilRocService" is more recognisable?

My own votes would be for:

Hiawatha Service for local CHI-MKE trains
Twin Cities Hiawatha for CHI-MKE-STP
Fox Cities Hiawatha for CHI-MKE-GRB
Badger Hiawatha for CHI-MKE-MSN

Nobody is gonna get on the wrong train based on name confusion -- destination and time are usually announced, and we should only so lucky to someday have frequent enough service that such confusion could even be possible.

Train names are something which adds personality to passenger rail travel. I do prefer coridoor names versus every last train being named for some random mostly-unknown historical figure.

moselman66 said:

Though it's not technically wrong to reference the Mississippi River with a name like Great River (and Amtrak has surprisingly little trackage along it) only about 1/3 of this CHI-STP routing is along the Mississippi. And the coloquial associations most people have of the mighty Mississippi and river lore are much farther downstream...St Louis, Memphis, Natchez, Baton Rouge, New Orleans, etc. It would kind of be like naming a rail line between Syracuse and Watertown the Emprie State Limited. It's not...wrong...but it's not really what most people would think for that name.

Click to expand...

The Mississippi River this far north is anything but a Great River. It is a comparatively a small river, little more than a creek to those who live along the true Great Mississippi. The dividing point between the Upper River and the Lower River is the point where the Upper Mississippi River and the Ohio River meet at Cairo, Illinois. (By the way, they call it Ka ro, like Karo Syrup, not Kai ro like the city in Egypt.) Since about 2/3 of the water volume is from the Ohio River and only 1/3 from the Upper Mississippi, the Upper River at best is barely more than a shadow of the Lower River. Then, once you get north of St. Louis where the Missouri River comes in, the river above that is only about half of what it is below that point.

jis said:

Following the example of Northeast Regionals, maybe all regional service running North of Chicago should simply be called Northern Regional so that people can stop bellyaching about name. LOL

Click to expand...

That already happened: the LaSalle, Marquette, Nicollet, and Radisson (maybe one or two more names I can't remember?) lost their names in favor of generic Hiawatha Service. And the Abraham Lincoln, State House, and Ann Rutledge lost their names in favor of generic Lincoln Service.

I don't recall if it was exactly the same time as all the northeastern trains lost their names, but the same ballpark. I thought it was quite sad, really - though the midwest names didn't all have quite as much history behind them as a lot of the NEC names did.

Siegmund said:

That already happened: the LaSalle, Marquette, Nicollet, and Radisson (maybe one or two more names I can't remember?) lost their names in favor of generic Hiawatha Service. And the Abraham Lincoln, State House, and Ann Rutledge lost their names in favor of generic Lincoln Service.

I don't recall if it was exactly the same time as all the northeastern trains lost their names, but the same ballpark. I thought it was quite sad, really - though the midwest names didn't all have quite as much history behind them as a lot of the NEC names did.

Click to expand...

The Lincoln Service is the most recent of the three examples you note. They changed in the mid-2000s, when service on the corridor was expanded to the current service level. The Hiawatha Service has been that way since the 90s at least.

The NEC went through a couple of phases. I don’t know when they lost their individual train names (other than the Twilight Shoreliner, which was also mid-2000s or so), but there was a period were Amtrak decided to brand some trains as Northeast Direct and some as Acela Regional. In theory, “Acela Regional” trains were supposed to get the refurbished Amfleets and reconfigured cafe cars that looked like the Acela Express cafes. In practice, the fleets were intermingled so much that there was no difference. Then in the early 2000s they all became Acela Regional, then just Regional, then Northeast Regional.

In the "golden age" of passenger trains, trains that had names were generally the ones that had a faster schedule and carried amenities such as diners and lounges. There were numerous unnamed coaches only trains. Then as train services were reduced as air and highway competition siphoned off traffic, the coaches only trains got eliminated and only the "name" trains survived although sometimes losing their amenities and even becoming coaches only. The names got taken over into Amtrak with some modifications so we arrive at the situation today where almost everything outside the NEC gets a name even if it is a 3 coach train with no cafe making all stops.

George Harris said:

The Mississippi River this far north is anything but a Great River. It is a comparatively a small river, little more than a creek to those who live along the true Great Mississippi. The dividing point between the Upper River and the Lower River is the point where the Upper Mississippi River and the Ohio River meet at Cairo, Illinois. (By the way, they call it Ka ro, like Karo Syrup, not Kai ro like the city in Egypt.) Since about 2/3 of the water volume is from the Ohio River and only 1/3 from the Upper Mississippi, the Upper River at best is barely more than a shadow of the Lower River. Then, once you get north of St. Louis where the Missouri River comes in, the river above that is only about half of what it is below that point.

Click to expand...

Looks pretty Great to me here... and we're not even to Lake Pepin yet at this spot:

AmtrakMaineiac said:

In the "golden age" of passenger trains, trains that had names were generally the ones that had a faster schedule and carried amenities such as diners and lounges. There were numerous unnamed coaches only trains. Then as train services were reduced as air and highway competition siphoned off traffic, the coaches only trains got eliminated and only the "name" trains survived although sometimes losing their amenities and even becoming coaches only. The names got taken over into Amtrak with some modifications so we arrive at the situation today where almost everything outside the NEC gets a name even if it is a 3 coach train with no cafe making all stops.

Click to expand...

One argument for named trains is that it reduces the chance that employees or the public will come up with their own clever nickname. For example, when UP11/12 between Portland and Pocatello, formerly the Idahoan, lost its name. Employees later called it the "Pocatello Rocket."

Well, ehm, I have to say, the "leaks" trickling out and being retracted about this service are...honestly farcical at this point! All I can do is sit back and laugh, because if I don't laugh, I'd get too frustrated. I'm not even going to post more about the name until the official announcement finally happens. Unbeknownst to me (and to many others, apparently) the proposed Borealis name for this service was "retracted" in an email to the Wisconsin Association of Railroad Passengers (WisARP) only one day after it came out. Source: https://wisarp.wordpress.com/2024/02/29/its-still-called-tcmc-for-a-little-longer/

It's honestly beyond hilarious to me that there have been two officially-unofficial names out there for the TCMC that have both been pulled back! Given that THIS name is also apparently not it, I have to wonder if they're just going to (as many have advocated for here & elsewhere) just name it the Twin Cities Hiawatha and be done with it. And regardless, still, we wait, and wait...keeping my fingers crossed and not uncrossing them until I see photographic evidence of this service's first run!

OmahaRoad said:

And for younger people under 30/35, and specifically college students who are huge potential users of this service, the name Hiawatha has no real meaning. Not to say its a "bad" name at all, but I don't think it will make any difference. Honestly Borealis is a pretty memorable and unique name, which might even be an actively positive thing.

Click to expand...

I would have thought that to most people who are not railfans, the name Hiawatha is primarily associated with the poem by Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, if not with the Native American figure on who that poem is based.

I guess far fewer know it also is, or ever was, a famous train.

George Harris said:

The Mississippi River this far north is anything but a Great River. It is a comparatively a small river, little more than a creek to those who live along the true Great Mississippi. The dividing point between the Upper River and the Lower River is the point where the Upper Mississippi River and the Ohio River meet at Cairo, Illinois. (By the way, they call it Ka ro, like Karo Syrup, not Kai ro like the city in Egypt.) Since about 2/3 of the water volume is from the Ohio River and only 1/3 from the Upper Mississippi, the Upper River at best is barely more than a shadow of the Lower River. Then, once you get north of St. Louis where the Missouri River comes in, the river above that is only about half of what it is below that point.

Click to expand...

I think many great rivers have a lot of mystique about them in popular perception, and this makes them "great" all the way upstream to the source. Explorers have gone to great lengths to find, for example, the source of the Nile. The sources of the Rhine and the Danube are major tourist attractions. But nobody cares about the sources or headwaters of their various tributaries, even if these collectively contribute far more water.

That said, apparently, the etymology of the word Mississippi does actually mean "great river".

AmtrakMaineiac said:

In the "golden age" of passenger trains, trains that had names were generally the ones that had a faster schedule and carried amenities such as diners and lounges. There were numerous unnamed coaches only trains.

Click to expand...

Hence the famous lyrics ...

"Passing trains that have no name,
And freight yards full of old black men
And the graveyards of the rusted automobile"