Restoring Service to Southern Montana (NYT Article)

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
One way you can spot someone who is anti-passenger train is when they suggest taking part of an existing service to provide "service" on another route. Excluding current COVID service reductions, the current Amtrak system is already just a skeleton service. Reducing service to three or four times a week would simply make the Empire Builder less viable.....and remember, the Empire Builder has been the most-ridden long distance train through most of the 2000s and 2010s, so it's not like it needs to be negatively tampered with. Also, when daily, the Empire Builder at Seattle and Portland has the shortest turnaround time of equipment of any Amtrak long distance train (about 6.5 hours). The longer running time of a train through Southern Montana could not be done by simply stealing Empire Builder equipment as this same-day turn would not be possible and additional equipment (that Amtrak never seems to have) would be required.
A couple of years ago I took the EB #7 from Chicago to MSP - one of the very odd times #7 was late - reason #8 from the previous day was
over 12 hours late and the Chicago cleaning crew could not turn the train set timely. When you are late you are late but usually there is enough time
built into the schedule for cleaning and recovery time. This is similar to the airlines when a flight gets late it dominos the timely downline operation -
usually by the end of the day there is enough recovery time - in this case being really really late made a mess.
#7 rarely sees lateness until into North Dakota and beyond.
#8 rarely arrives in Chicago on time - in this case arriving the next day.
 
If a new line were established, such as the one being discussed in this thread, does Amtrak have enough cars/engines in reserve for such service? Just curious.

Thanks!
 
If a new line were established, such as the one being discussed in this thread, does Amtrak have enough cars/engines in reserve for such service? Just curious.

Thanks!
At present, not quite, unless it is done using the EB consists on a few days a week, which IMHO would be a bad idea.
 
When the Empire Builder went tri-weekly in 78-79 ridership dropped from 321,400 in 1976 (last year with daily service) to 187,800 in 1978 and 201,100 in 1979.
 
I would love to see passenger service in Southern Montana restored. That was once the Route of the Amtrak North Coast Hiawatha that was discontinued in the 1980's. IMO, it would be popular as is it would provide the closest stop to Yellowstone National Park. With the current Amtrak leadership I don't see this happening. They haven't even proposed replacing old equipment on the existing LD routes.
 
An interesting read in the NYT today. Seems like an outside chance at some point in the next few years, but I would say the odds are low.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/24/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
More info here, including a map of the potential routing:
https://www.mdt.mt.gov/pubinvolve/railplan/docs/march2012-presentation.pdf
It would appear that the line would run from Sandpoint, ID to Fargo, ND.

Anyone care to speculate on the options for service? This is what I came up with:

1. Tri-state service from Sandpoint to Fargo, with timed departures to link up with Empire Builder trips. Timed transfers would be problematic, given the reliability of the EB schedule.

2. Service that somewhat mirrors the Empire Builder between Portland/Seattle and Chicago. This would cost more, but would have the benefit of potentially offering a second daily option from each end. The current EB timetable doesn't really work for people traveling to/from Spokane/Sandpoint on the west end, and the Fargo, ND stop on the east end. This "Hiawatha" second daily could also be routed via Stampede pass, to serve additional cities in Washington state.

3. A single daily split train routing, with the Portland-Chicago train taking the southern route, and the Seattle-Chicago train taking the norther route. Timed transfer in Spokane and Fargo would be problematic, due to schedule reliability issues.
Actually from the presentation, it looks like there are three alternatives:

1) A completely in-state service connecting Billings and Missoula. This has ~$160 million capital start-up costs.

2) A tri-state service connecting Sand Point with Williston. They didn't discuss this at all, so there are no cost estimates, etc. From the point of view of the State of Montana, which would be presumably paying for this, it would provide access to some of the smaller towns in the eastern part of the state, yet not provide so much service to North Dakota and Idaho that people start whining about "freeloaders" and demand that North Dakota and Idaho contribute funding, which would delay the implementation of the service.

3) A revival of the North Coast Hiawatha connecting Chicago and Seattle/Portland. They estimated the start-up capital costs at over a billion dollars. This wouldn't require state funding, but would probably need a Congressional appropriation. Whether this provides usable service within Montana would depend on the schedule. You wouldn't want to have stops at the biggest Montana cities to be in the middle of the night, like they have in Ohio.

I'm not sure whether the state of Montana really cares about connections to the Twin Cities, Chicago, Seattle, or Portland, at least no from my reading of either the New York Times article or the Montana rail presentation.
 
When the Empire Builder went tri-weekly in 78-79 ridership dropped from 321,400 in 1976 (last year with daily service) to 187,800 in 1978 and 201,100 in 1979.
Of course the ridership dropped. The more relevant questions relate to net costs and farebox recovery. In other words, did they loose less money or not compared to daily service?
 
Of course the ridership dropped. The more relevant questions relate to net costs and farebox recovery. In other words, did they loose less money or not compared to daily service?
I know it is fashionable in the US to talk about farebox recovery, and of course the convenience of the customers fall by the wayside because of the false belief that if someone is willing to use a crappy service it must be good enough. It is part of the rapid descent to mediocrity in almost everything in the country that we so love to moan about in a different context.

There was a time when Air India was allegedly trying to improve its farebox recovery on its routes to Africa. Their method was to cut flight frequencies. They went from things that were already twice a week, down to once a week, then to fortnightly and so on. A famous cartoonist in India came up with a cartoon showing Air India flying a Puss Moth once a month to get better farebox recovery. It looked pretty funny then. 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:
the Pioneer full run from chicago to seattle was my favorite; teh scenery on the desert wind was also spectacular; i miss those routes
 
I tend to agree with all of that part. (Amtrak did try running them on alternate days in 1978 and 1979. It would be interesting to see how much the Builder's ridership was hurt by that, vs. the daily Builder and triweekly NCH before that.) A 4x/wk California Zephyr and 3x/wk Pioneer was certainly ugly.

In the 1995-1997 period when the Empire Builder was reduced from daily to four times per week (opposite the tri-weekly Pioneer), ridership did indeed fall by about 40%, the amount of the frequency reduction. The theory was that people would simply change their travel plans to coincide when the train operated. That didn't happen, and part of the reason was that in 1994, the Empire Builder was the single most-ridden long distance train and was sold out a lot during hte summer, so the less-than-daily operation simply turned people away.

This is only a problem if you hold the Chicago departure time fixed. Note that during much of the time that both trains ran, the NCH left Chicago 3 or 4 hours before the Builder and got to Spokane 1 or 2 hours before. I would hope for a new service that either did the same thing, or ran one train overnight from Chicago to Minneapolis.

Well, that's the point. Something's got to give with longer running time. Either it takes extra equipment because the consist can't turn on the West Coast the same day (and likely no Coast Starlight connection) or it leaves Chicago much earlier and severs connections, which naturally reduces ridership. The salient point is that the current (when daily) Empire Builder schedule maximizes both connections on each end and equipment utilization. Anything longer sacrifices one or more of these attributes.

There is much fuss made of the NCH route being slower -- but Fargo to Spokane was only between 1 and 1½ hours slower, both pre-Amtrak and in 1979, than the Builder. A lot depends on the quality of track in North Dakota. MRL has maintained the ex-NP in Montana to a very high standard and runs freight at 60 in many places - can probably run passenger at 79 without doing much besides putting up the speed limit signs.

Well, the pre-Amtrak and early Amtrak schedules really don't mean a lot. Pre-Amtrak, the Empire Builder always had a lot of fat in the schedule, and prior to 1966 or so, the Empire Builder was about 2 hours faster than the North Coast Limited Fargo to Spokane and 3 hours Fargo to Seattle. Both ways, but especially eastbound, the Empire Builder was scheduled for optimum arrival times at Spokane, Whitefish, and Minneapolis rather than operating on the fastest schedule. In the later 1960s up until Amtrak, the Empire Builder was bogged down by its "slowest common denominator" which was the North Coast Limited, as the trains were consolidated between Chicago and St. Paul and Pasco and Portland. GN added time to the Empire Builder at intermediate stations as to not cause long station well at key stations a pre-700 AM arrival in Seattle. The last BN Empire Builder departed Seattle 1 hour 15 minutes after the North Coast Limited, but left Spokane 4 minutes ahead of it and arrived in Fargo 2 hours, 18 minutes before, then set out across Minnesota on a schedule with a 39 MPH average running time because it had to wait for the North Coast Limited in St. Paul. But even this schedule (west of Fargo) had fat in it: 5 hours 45 minutes Whitefish to Havre on a run that could be done in under 5 hours (and was reflected as such in Amtrak schedules). As an Amtrak train, the Empire Builder operated via Grand Forks on a route with less than stellar track and included a backup move out of the station. Today, with no backup at Grand Forks and an upgraded railroad courtesy of the Bakken Oil Boom, the eastbound Empire Builder is about 50 minutes faster from Minot to Fargo as the first Amtrak Empire Builder in 1971.

The "quality of track" is not an issue, but it is illogical to presume that a route without passenger trains for 41 years could operate on a schedule when passenger trains did run. It all depends on money: If you have enough of it to invest in track, signaling, signage, and recalibrating grade crossing warning devices, then the schedule can be as fast as the money dictates. If your budget has limitations (very likely), the schedule will reflect. Primary case in point: Missoula to Paradise. Passenger trains operated over Evaro Hill rather than along the river via St. Regis. Evaro is faster, but is now dark territory. St. Regis has block signal protection but takes longer. Either way, the train would take longer than in Amtrak days, but the choice would have to be between the even longer route via St. Regis or adding signals (a significant expense) on the route via Evaro. West of Spokane, there would likely be a local desire to tie in this service to the existing push for east-west service via Yakima (and BNSF would likely not support a second passenger train on the Cascade Tunnel route), which would add additional time (and on a route without block signals) and expense. And yes, the Southern Montana train could be consolidated with the Empire Builder at Spokane, but again that would be time-consuming and potentially risky (if one train or the other was late) and likely could put Empire Builder connections in Chicago and Portland and West Coast turnaround time in jeopardy.

Given the challenges on MRL's three steep grades (Bozeman Pass, Winston Hill, and Mullan Pass) and the what would be necessary to sufficiently increase track speed on curves, my guess would be a St. Paul-Seattle running time of 4 to 6 hours longer than the Empire Builder unless a buttload of money was available.
 
Here's a couple of questions for those of you more familiar with the area and the hurdles. First, what if the Empire Builder ran only to Seattle and the new "southern" train ran only to Portland - not splitting either in Spokane frees up some equipment, no? Secondly, does a reinstated NCH even have to go through Spokane? Finally, is there a way to combine the needs of Montana with a reinstated Pioneer or variant? Just curious.
 
I had forgotten about Evaro having been signalled 40 years ago. All 64 miles of the MRL 10th sub is has only been maintained as Class 3 since then, and yes that will cost a little time.

Yes, BNSF will not want another train through the Cascade Tunnel. This may well be a point in favor of the NCH proposal -- MRL was near-capacity at the peak of coal and oil traffic several years ago but no longer is.
I have never quite been able to understand Amtrak's attitude toward connections in Chicago. In any given year it seems to arbitrarily choose to allow half of them and disallow the other half. At least in the past this meant that (for instance) one of the Broadway or Lake Shore, but not both, would connect to a given Western train (for the 70s Builder it was only the Broadway.) I actually first rode the Cardinal because of a CZ-Capitol connection not being possible, the first time I rode to the east coast...

Here's a couple of questions for those of you more familiar with the area and the hurdles. First, what if the Empire Builder ran only to Seattle and the new "southern" train ran only to Portland - not splitting either in Spokane frees up some equipment, no? Secondly, does a reinstated NCH even have to go through Spokane? Finally, is there a way to combine the needs of Montana with a reinstated Pioneer or variant? Just curious.

The off-season Builder would sometimes be 2 cars shorter if it didn't run in two sections. The summer Builder runs full.

One could run a long-distance train Spokane-Portland-Seattle or Spokane-Seattle-Portland, instead of splitting it in Spokane. This may well be a good option depending how the timing worked out.

Yes, if it goes westward across Montana, it has to go through Sandpoint, ID, and Spokane. Before 1980 it could have taken the Milwaukee Road and bypassed Sandpoint (saving distance but not time) or both Sandpoint and Spokane (but the Milwaukee only did that with through freight, not with their passenger trains.) The next rail route south of Spokane is the Pioneer route.

I should add that Spokane is the largest city between Seattle and St. Paul, and would produce considerable traffic if it were served at a decent hour. You don't want to bypass it even if you can.

Theoretically there are two options for serving parts of both Montana and Wyoming: Spokane-Silver Bow (Butte)-Pocatello-UP across Wyoming, or Spokane-Laurel (Billings)-Casper-Cheyenne-Denver. Both of them would be very slow -- hundreds of miles on secondary freight lines -- and the former would look sort like a deliberate attempt to avoid as many population centers as possible. I can't imagine either of those being chosen over the Pioneer or the NCH.
 
Here's a couple of questions for those of you more familiar with the area and the hurdles. First, what if the Empire Builder ran only to Seattle and the new "southern" train ran only to Portland - not splitting either in Spokane frees up some equipment, no?

Again, with this proposal, you would deprive stops along the Empire Builder east of Spokane access to stops along the Empire Builder route west of Spokane toward Portland and the Coast Starlight connection. In other words, you're proposing a reduction of service on one route to give it to another. True passenger train advocates don't do that. While there are numerous changes that could enhance the Empire Builder, even with its flaws it has been more often than not the single most-ridden long distance Amtrak train over the past 20+ years. If a new service has merit, it should be able to stand on its own without needing to reduce (scarce) Amtrak service on other routes.
 
I know it is fashionable in the US to talk about farebox recovery, and of course the convenience of the customers fall by the wayside because of the false belief that if someone is willing to use a crappy service it must be good enough. It is part of the rapid descent to mediocrity in almost everything in the country that we so love to moan about in a different context
I think it is "fashionable" (and often legally required) for any business to talk about revenue.

And bad things tend to happen when it gets too low.
 
...you're proposing a reduction of service on one route to give it to another. True passenger train advocates don't do that.
I don't think that's a fair statement. I was not advocating for anything - simply asking questions as someone who is less familiar with the area. I have ridden the Empire Builder and have great respect for it. However in the days of the heritage passenger services different communities would have been served. Since the focus of this thread is serving Montana, some curiosity questions should be expected.
 
Never have lived on the Empire Builder route. However it is a very essential service train. Summer lots of tourists and many locals. Winter? When I-90 and US-2 close or become a very slow drive the Builder becomes very essential. How many of us want the route to become less than daily.? What is needed is more equipment on the train. Sell ots any time of the year has no excuses if a sell out i known at 3 days ahead. It is all about more equipment. Fix the darn parked cars at Beech Grove.
 
Never have lived on the Empire Builder route. However it is a very essential service train. Summer lots of tourists and many locals. Winter? When I-90 and US-2 close or become a very slow drive the Builder becomes very essential. How many of us want the route to become less than daily.? What is needed is more equipment on the train. Sell ots any time of the year has no excuses if a sell out i known at 3 days ahead. It is all about more equipment. Fix the darn parked cars at Beech Grove.

It is all about more equipment. Fix the darn parked cars at Beech Grove.

Google Map of Beech Grove facility Indianapolis IN:

Google Maps

Map is zoomable


Map is dated - but not every train trip needs sleepers cafe observation parlor first/business class accommodations !
Nor the need of high speed Acela - there aren't that many places where the tracks are in the condition to allow that kind of speed !
 
A Williston to Spokane train would not connect with the Empire Builder at one end or the other. I recommend a Billings to Spokane train with through cars to both Seattle and Portland Operationally the Southern MT train would become the PDX section ofthe Empire Builder. A 10:30 pm arrival at Spokane would be plenty of padding to prevent delays to #7.
 
Has the Big Sky Rail Authority decided on its misssion? That is: is it going to fund intra state trains, or is it going to try to connect to the Amtrak national system somewhere on one end, the other end, or both ends. I've checked their website and cannot seem to find the answer.
 
Has the Big Sky Rail Authority decided on its misssion? That is: is it going to fund intra state trains, or is it going to try to connect to the Amtrak national system somewhere on one end, the other end, or both ends. I've checked their website and cannot seem to find the answer.
Reminds me of the Rio Grande Zephyr situation when it began, and replaced the former "California Service" remnant of the original California Zephyr...
Since it could not possibly connect with the new Amtrak San Francisco Zephyr at both Denver and Ogden, due to much slower running time, a decision had to be made as to which end it would connect, and Ogden became the choice. Probably because it was determined that more thru passenger's desiring to see the Colorado Rockies, than the Wyoming route would rather lay over a day or more in Denver than Salt Lake City or Ogden.

An interesting side note to this, was that during the year or so that the "California Service" ran, between the end of service on the Western Pacific and the beginning of Amtrak, the D&RGW ran their train up its formerly freight only line to Ogden to connect with the Southern Pacific's City of San Francisco. When Amtrak took over, they cut back to Salt Lake City, and ran a bus or van instead for any connecting passenger's...
 
Has the Big Sky Rail Authority decided on its misssion? That is: is it going to fund intra state trains, or is it going to try to connect to the Amtrak national system somewhere on one end, the other end, or both ends. I've checked their website and cannot seem to find the answer.

I am not sure that it has. The local news coverage (and there has been a lot of it this past year -- the Missoula newspaper and TV stations seem to love running a story every time a new county signed up to join; I suppose there is a shortage of feel-good light news this year) has talked only about lobbying for restoration of the NCH.

As for "fund": no. There is no (significant) state or local money and never will be. If we were still in a 1970s 403(b) model where a state didn't buy equipment and contributed six-to-low-seven-figures a year toward a train, yeah, we could afford that. Even a one-time $50 million bill will be met with "so, which university are you going to close to pay for it?"
 
And this is a problem that will continue to rear its ugly head regarding Amtrak's wanting to run regional rail corridors. It sounds good, it looks good on paper, but when it comes down to brass tacks and doorknobs, it's the local government that can put the kabosh on it because it will have to pay for it, eventually.

Let's start in Ohio............
 
As Greyhound slowly winds down to total cessation of service, I would think that there would be renewed interest in having some kind of public transportation as an option in many of the affected communities around the country....

Amtrak could buy Greyhound, and call it AmHound. What could go wrong? LOL.
 
The Big Sky Passenger Rail Authority is seeing dollar signs in its dreams, now that Biden's infrastructure bill is alive:

https://www.kpax.com/news/montana-n...gains-new-members-eyes-infrastructure-funding
I can't imagine a NCH restoration actually coming in ahead of the Texas Chief or Broadway Limited, if there were any new long-distance service. At the prices the freight RRs are charging before agreeing to host passenger trains, $2B will not go far.
 
Back
Top