Philly Amtrak Fan
Engineer
I was reading the PRIIA for reintroducing Pioneer service (http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/850/229/PioneerServiceStudy.pdf). It showed some history of Chicago to West Coast service.
Before the 1997 cuts, there were five trains from Chicago to the west coast:
Southwest Chief: To Los Angeles via Kansas City and Albuquerque
Desert Wind: To Los Angeles via Denver and Salt Lake City
California Zephyr: To the San Francisco area via Denver and Salt Lake City
Pioneer: To Seattle/Portland via Denver and Boise
Empire Builder: To Seattle/Portland via Minneapolis and Spokane
Of course the Desert Wind and Pioneer were cut.
Before the cuts, Amtrak tried operating different trains on different days
1996 schedules (timetables.org):
California Zephyr and Desert Wind: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0038
Empire Builder (and Texas Eagle): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0037
Pioneer: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0039
The Southwest Chief was still running daily.
The assumption is that if you keep three trains then one has to serve LA, one has to serve the Bay Area, and one has to serve the Pacific Northwest. The California Zephyr is an obvious save. Even though you lose Las Vegas, you probably had to keep the Southwest Chief over the Desert Wind if you had to choose.
This brings up to the Pioneer vs. the Empire Builder. At the time, Amtrak was running to Minneapolis daily but only going west of Minneapolis four times a day with the Pioneer the other three days.
Since it has been pointed out that these west coast trains lose a ton of money, I wonder what if Amtrak had decided to keep the Pioneer instead of the Empire Builder with the assumption they did keep the daily Minneapolis to Chicago route?
Right now you have three different train routes with the only overlap in Illinois for the CZ and SWC. If you had kept the Pioneer instead of the Empire Builder, they would share the CHI-DEN route. You could then split/merge the Zephyr and Pioneer at Denver or if you wanted to be drastic require a transfer in DEN for the Pioneer. Right now it's two separate routes. Have the Pioneer instead and you only have to run it between Denver and Seattle as opposed to Chicago to Seattle. You can then run separate trains from CHI to MSP and Seattle and/or Portland to Spokane in the days before the 750 mile rule. You can say what about between Minneapolis to Spokane? I say what about Denver to Portland on the old Pioneer route? Something was going to be cut.
While the Empire Builder's ridership is very high, one of the highest if not the highest in the Amtrak system, I wonder how much of that is CHI-MSP (or SEA/PDX to Spokane) as this article hints at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/28/us-amtrak-finances-insight-idUSKBN0OD17R20150528#AIJ2K6CsDITHrde9.97
The train time to Seattle would have been much longer on the Pioneer as opposed to the Empire Builder. But you keep service between Seattle/Portland and Denver which you don't have now. You would take away MSP/Pacific Northwest service but then the CHI-MSP route would be much shorter and less susceptible to delays. Every time I mention of extending a route people always come back and say more delays will happen. The Spokane service could then be put at better times to better serve Washington/Oregon). Would you still need two branches or could you just do SEA to Spokane?
So assuming you keep the CHI-MSP and both Spokane branches, would running DEN to PDX be financially better than MSP to Spokane? The Pioneer PRIIA shows some old Pioneer data but I have no EB data and even if I did would you be able to show how many passengers actually travel between MSP and Spokane?
I still think they should have tried to keep SLC to LAX or at the very least Vegas to LAX.
Before the 1997 cuts, there were five trains from Chicago to the west coast:
Southwest Chief: To Los Angeles via Kansas City and Albuquerque
Desert Wind: To Los Angeles via Denver and Salt Lake City
California Zephyr: To the San Francisco area via Denver and Salt Lake City
Pioneer: To Seattle/Portland via Denver and Boise
Empire Builder: To Seattle/Portland via Minneapolis and Spokane
Of course the Desert Wind and Pioneer were cut.
Before the cuts, Amtrak tried operating different trains on different days
1996 schedules (timetables.org):
California Zephyr and Desert Wind: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0038
Empire Builder (and Texas Eagle): http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0037
Pioneer: http://www.timetables.org/full.php?group=19961110n&item=0039
The Southwest Chief was still running daily.
The assumption is that if you keep three trains then one has to serve LA, one has to serve the Bay Area, and one has to serve the Pacific Northwest. The California Zephyr is an obvious save. Even though you lose Las Vegas, you probably had to keep the Southwest Chief over the Desert Wind if you had to choose.
This brings up to the Pioneer vs. the Empire Builder. At the time, Amtrak was running to Minneapolis daily but only going west of Minneapolis four times a day with the Pioneer the other three days.
Since it has been pointed out that these west coast trains lose a ton of money, I wonder what if Amtrak had decided to keep the Pioneer instead of the Empire Builder with the assumption they did keep the daily Minneapolis to Chicago route?
Right now you have three different train routes with the only overlap in Illinois for the CZ and SWC. If you had kept the Pioneer instead of the Empire Builder, they would share the CHI-DEN route. You could then split/merge the Zephyr and Pioneer at Denver or if you wanted to be drastic require a transfer in DEN for the Pioneer. Right now it's two separate routes. Have the Pioneer instead and you only have to run it between Denver and Seattle as opposed to Chicago to Seattle. You can then run separate trains from CHI to MSP and Seattle and/or Portland to Spokane in the days before the 750 mile rule. You can say what about between Minneapolis to Spokane? I say what about Denver to Portland on the old Pioneer route? Something was going to be cut.
While the Empire Builder's ridership is very high, one of the highest if not the highest in the Amtrak system, I wonder how much of that is CHI-MSP (or SEA/PDX to Spokane) as this article hints at:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/05/28/us-amtrak-finances-insight-idUSKBN0OD17R20150528#AIJ2K6CsDITHrde9.97
The train time to Seattle would have been much longer on the Pioneer as opposed to the Empire Builder. But you keep service between Seattle/Portland and Denver which you don't have now. You would take away MSP/Pacific Northwest service but then the CHI-MSP route would be much shorter and less susceptible to delays. Every time I mention of extending a route people always come back and say more delays will happen. The Spokane service could then be put at better times to better serve Washington/Oregon). Would you still need two branches or could you just do SEA to Spokane?
So assuming you keep the CHI-MSP and both Spokane branches, would running DEN to PDX be financially better than MSP to Spokane? The Pioneer PRIIA shows some old Pioneer data but I have no EB data and even if I did would you be able to show how many passengers actually travel between MSP and Spokane?
I still think they should have tried to keep SLC to LAX or at the very least Vegas to LAX.